Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 16

User:Shattereddd - http://spam.invasionschat.com

• Shattereddd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Says on user page, "I Own the website Invasions Chat (a chat website) and love to contribute to wikipedia. Especially the chat articles."
• 68.82.245.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Has been spamming invasionschat.com: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]
• invasionschat.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com
• Web chat site (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Shattereddd spammed invasionschat.com here, then after a spam warning, he added Invasions Chat instead.
• DigiChat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - spammed by 68.82.245.213, also edited by Shattereddd --Ronz 17:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

User removed this report, which was restored. Videmus Omnia 17:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Twice. --Ronz 18:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Four minutes apart at 17:45 & 17:49 UTC on 27 June. — Athaenara ✉ 10:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

68.82.245.213 is likely to be a compromised computer. 5 blacklists but dynamic IP so cannot block for long periods. http://spam.invasionschat.com is hosted in Boston, 68.82 is in Chicago. MER-C 07:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Shattereddd just recreated DigiChat with no references or other indication of notability. I've given it a prod tag. --Ronz 19:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Vdoogle/ Nickboyett

• Special:Linksearch/*.vdoogle.com
• Nickboyett (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

IP accounts

67.182.4.58 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
67.182.36.71 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
67.182.36.111 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
12.44.170.10 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
67.181.201.132 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
67.182.36.151 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
67.182.0.3 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Spamming_of_http:.2F.2Fspam.vdoogle.com
→ See also: User_talk:Hu12#Complaints
User:Nickboyett is Nick Boyett [8], a co-founder of the Vdoogle search engine which was started October 24, 2006. 13 December 2006 Created page Vdoogle, which was promptly speedied WP:CSD#A7. Since that time Its become evident all contributions from this account and the related IP's were being made for promotional purposes. Despite the attempts to explain the relevant policies allong with the importance of Neutrality, I believe this user fails to see this from the point of Wikipedia when it comes to having a conflict of interest.--Hu12 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.

• The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Chic Cicero (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hogd120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• IPSOS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• GlassFET (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The article Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., with most of it's citations being added by User:Hogd120 looks like a blatant advertisement for recruitment, a self-promotional article, an article which violates unfair business practices and lacks in W:V and W:N. The other article is about the president of this corporation and was entirely created by new User:Hogd120 and does not follow guidelines in WP:BIO. I am requesting administrative attention and opinion on this as this looks like a case for WP:COI. A new editor, User:Hogd120 who is a single purpose account with the name of the organization, appeared out of nowhere and seems to be collaborating with two other more experienced users: User:IPSOS and User:GlassFET. I nominated the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. for this reason but many editors seem to have ganged up who might be members of this organization because they use subjective terms in wanting to keep the article. Also, User:IPSOS accuses anyone with another POV as being a sockpuppet. I am including the concerns of User:Rondus in this complaint as it does not appear to me at all that he is a sock but someone with an opposing POV whose view is being suppressed. Here is his or her complaint which appears to be a valid complaint regarding trademark/copyright violation and unfair business practices regarding another organization: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. . The other organization is also up for AfD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega Could someone take a look at this? There seems to be alot of COI going on. Thanks. Kephera975 23:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Shortened version requested by Administer Mer-C is listed below--Rondus 22:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to your rant

Sorry, but you are simply wrong.

1. I am not an agent of Cicero or HOGD, Inc. I met Cicero once. We didn't discuss any of these issues. I don't have his telephone number, email address, or snail mail address. We don't correspond or talk to one another. He most probably doesn't remember my name. I am not a member of his order, and have never joined any Golden Dawn order. Primarily because of people like you.
2. I was not even implementing any particular agenda. Frater FiatLux was reverting to a months-old version of the article, losing all the intermediate edits. This was explained to him repeated as the reason the article was being reverted, by both myself and other editors: here, here, here

In short, Frater FiatLux refused to listen to advice on proper editing etiquette. Because his edits were rude and affected more of the article than he was actually concerned with, they were reverted by myself and other editors while asking him to be more focused with his edits. He chose not to do so, and instead to edit war. This got him indefinitely blocked. He made the mistake of thinking that his concerns were more important than and trumped the concerns of other editors, and simply kept repeating himself, just as you have been.

Your misunderstanding of the situation has led you to jump to conclusions: conclusions which to me seem bizarre and paranoid. But hey, if that's how you want to come off, that's your business. Your current path, however, will get you blocked, probably sooner than later. Try having a conversation with people rather than trying to lecture them on the law. Quite frankly, your organization does not meet our notability requirements and will soon be deleted. That's not the fault of your competitors.

Good day. IPSOS (talk) 00:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

But the reason why “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega).” was changed, is it's just so looooooong and convoluted, and no-one is going to enter that into the search bar on wikipedia. Maybe we would just have to have a HOGD disambiguation page if anyone kept the R.A+O page?Merkinsmum 00:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Rondus: Too long (2 whole A4 pages), didn't read. Please shrink your statement by an order of magnitude. Thanks. MER-C 08:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is being abused in a fifteen-year old legal dispute between two esoteric orders. One of the parties, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc., is presently sending its members en masse to Wikipedia to “edit" and/or delete the other party's article in a misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising medium for their order to gain an unfair business advantage, misrepresent the results of litigation, misrepresent the current status of the trademark, and to falsely portray HOGD, Inc. as the successor of the historical, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, while depriving the other party of its legal rights (and even its correct name on its article). On January 28, 2005, H.O.G.D., Inc. attempted to repudiate a November 20, 1996 trademark Agreement by filing suit against H.O.G.D./A.O for trademark infringement in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Griffin counter-sued for breach of contract. This litigation consisting of 169 documents filed in the public record, may be accessed by any interested party at https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/login.pl?609863100750398-L_835_0-1 through the Pacer system of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. On January 17, 2007, the parties reached a Settlement Agreement read into the public record by U.S. Magistrate-Judge Maria Elena James as FTR 3:44-4:07 of date 1-17-2007. Over a period of several months, user IPSOS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly (nearly 30 times) vandalized the H.O.G.D./A.O. article in an attempt to misrepresent the character of said agreement, the status of the trademarks as well as to deprive the H.O.G.D./A.O. of its legal name on its article. Evidence of the above will be provided upon request. Together with a group of equally POV biased and COI editors (or perhaps even sock puppets), user IPSOS is currently attempting to get the other party's page deleted from Wikipedia. Moreover, every time that an editor attempts to portray a more balanced POV, user IPOS subverts 3RR rules, reverting excessively, even reverting the deletion discussion to suppress relevant information, and subverts 3RR rules by claiming that the opposing editors are "sock puppets." I will provide documentation on all of the above upon request. As of last night, the COI activities of user IPSOS et al. has resulted in the cancelation of one party's page, achieving HOGD, Inc.'s goal of using Wikipedia for unfair business competition.--Rondus 13:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence please, with regards to on-wiki POV-pushing? MER-C 14:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a start. There will be more forthcoming over the weekend. Over a period of several months, editor IPSPS, who has acknowledged that he is an associate of H.O.G.D., Inc.’s Charles Cicero, has repeatedly defaced the H.O.G.D./A.O. article from “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 2007 settled litigation with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. guaranteeing the Alpha et Omega's right to use the name of its outer order, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, in the United States without interference.[33]”

to “According to their web site,[27] the Rosicrucian Order of A+O is the registered owner of the trademarks Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega® [28] and Ordo Rosae Rubeae et Aureae Crucis (R.R. et A.C.)®.[29][30] The Alpha et Omega is also the registered owner of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® in the European Union[31] and in Canada.[32]. The Rosicrucian Order of A+O in 1996 contracted with The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. a mutual "right to usage" of the trademark Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn® worldwide while acknowledging each Order's "exclusive ownership" of their respective nationally registered trademarks. A copy of this contract was filed for recordation with the United States Patent and Trademark Office.[33]” The defacement by Cicero associate IPSOS shows a remarkable familiarity with the above-referenced litigation by the parties. Whilst HOGD, Inc's attorney maintained that the 1996 Agreement was a “right to use” agreement in which each party accorded to the other party a “right to use” its respective mark or marks, Griffin attorney never characterized the 1996 Agreement but maintained that each party acquired a vested property interest in the mark or marks of the other party by virtue of the specific language of the Agreement. The matter was never settled in that the parties settled on January 17, 2007, two weeks before they were scheduled to go to trial on January 28, 2007, and the January 17, 2007 Settlement Agreement superseded the November 20, 1996 agreement.

When the knowingly inaccurate and misleading defacement of the H.O.G.D../A+O article by HOGD, Inc. associate IPSOS was repeatedly corrected, IPSOS then engaged the assistance of Wikipedia editorial staff in freezing the H.O.G.D./A+O article; and unlawfully depriving the H.O.G.D./A+O of its own name and mark by arbitrarily renaming the article “Rosicrucian Order of the Alpha et Omega.” The article has now been unfairly deleted, yet that of HOGD, Inc. preserved, thus achieving their goals of using Wikipedia for unfair business advantage. It is therefore requested that either the HOGD/A+O article be restored together with its proper legal name, or that the HOGD, Inc. page as well be deleted for attemtping to manipulate Wikipedia in order to gain unfair business advantage.--Rondus 18:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Please stop ranting. I've already explained I am not an associate and that I was reverting bad edits to a previous version. I was NOT THE AUTHOR of the previous version I was reverting to. IPSOS (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I'm not big on beauracratic language, User:Rondus is correct, though, in his assesment that the way you were editing the Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega page to that title name shows a striking resemblance and familiarity with the dispute between the two parties, the other being The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and its licensees. Your familiarity has been admitted to at the AdF page here where you take this parties' side where you purposely misinform and POV push: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. . You also, in the edits of the AfD put tags all over my name and conveniently ignored putting tags on those who side with you, such as User:Hogd120, a COI-driven single purpose account user who suddenly provides you with biased citations from authors mainly associated with that organization. You have not disclosed in any of the AfD's whether or not you have a vested interest in the artcles as an editor per AfD guidelines, which appears that you are trying to pass yourself off as someone who has no vested interest. Myself, I have worked on all of the articles at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn and I request that I be untagged. I have put up all of the articles for deletion because I believe they all violate : WP:SPAM, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, and WP:SOAP. You have stated in these AfD's repeatedly that the only organizations that you care for and wished to keep were The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn (who is a licensee of the prior organization as can be seen from that article) . Now, further to this User:IPSOS has now removed the deletion tag unilaterally from The Open Source Order of the Golden Dawn when there had been no consensus reached to do so as can be seen from the edit history. He is not an administrator and can not close an AfD, and I did NOT withdraw my nomination. I firmly believe that Wikipedia is not the place for promotion of one organization over another or for gaining a marketing advantage on search engines. Kephera975 20:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is getting to be too much. The AfD was closed by an administrator, User:JoshuaZ, here. I think somebody really needs to open a User conduct RfC against you. I have done absolutely nothing wrong. I will not stand for any further attacks from you. IPSOS (talk) 22:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it was not intentional. I've retracted that now. Kephera975 22:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975. MER-C 10:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Frater FiatLux (2nd) and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/JMax555. MER-C 12:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is now further evidence of WP:COI occuring. Established editors have determined to delete The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. and enforced the decision in deletion review: [9]. However, without consensus, user:IPSOS has now unlilaterally merged the majority of what was that article into the main Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn article and reversed a decision made by editors previous in consideration for the neutrality of Wikipedia made a year ago here: Talk:Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn/Archive 3 . It seems clear to me that user:IPSOS is more interested in portraying a partisan view of the contemporary direction of the historical organization ratherthan in reaching a stance of neutrality for Wikipedia and for the main article, Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn. As it even says at the top of the article "this article is about the historical organization of the 19th century."Kephera975 17:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

This is simply not the correct venue to continue to pursue this. I've already clearly stated that I have no affiliation with any Golden Dawn order. You're beginning to sound like a broken record. IPSOS (talk) 17:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

None of you accusers has provided a shred of evidence (with respect to on-wiki behaviour) to demonstrate tendentious editing. In fact, it's probably the accusers who are the problem here. Let it rest. MER-C 02:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Andglo shilling for Parkside Media Ltd

Articles on non-notable series of publications all belonging to the same corporate family (Parkside Media Ltd). I have CSD'd the following for WP:COI and blatant WP:ADVERT:

• D-Photo Magazine
• Performance Car Magazine
• NZV8 Magazine
• New Zealand Classic Car Magazine
• Tone_Magazine

Another of their publications MacGuide, tried to crowd in on the existing MacGuide page. This has been edited out.

jddphd (talk · contribs) 05:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to apply the banhammer, as it's a spam only account. MER-C 08:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that comment directed at me? I'm not sure I understand... jddphd (talk · contribs) 11:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, as the account has already been blocked indefinitely. (Note: see banhammer for what I meant.) MER-C 13:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OhmyNews

• 123.2.168.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This user has been tendentiously inserting links to OhmyNews, a Korean site that allows anyone to publish whatever they like as news. [10] [11] I've suggested that this editor start a thread at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to discuss the source. In my opinion, this is not a reliable source and it looks like 123.2.168.215 is authoring articles at OhmyNews, and then trying to cite his or her original research into Wikipedia. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm fairly certain that it's User:Blissyu2 AKA Internodeuser and coincidentally, this IP has edited Blissyu2's userpage and tried to blank the internodeuser arb pages as "user request". It's also an Australian IP which is consistent with Blissyu2. Sarah 16:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Update. Sarah has blocked 123 as a disruptive sock, so this case can be closed. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

New Rave

Me and another IP Address have begun a bit of a revert war regarding a source. This user has removed it more than once (without edit summary) after me adding it again, so i have since stopped re-adding it until the issue has been resolved. Any help would be appreciated. --SteelersFan UK06 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

No conflict of interest alleged, so I'm calling this one a content dispute. I could not link the IP to the source concerned. MER-C 02:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• Closing my own nomination. Nothing more to do; article looks good, and author stated "I hope I'm not breaking the rules". There don't appear to be really any peacock problems. The Evil Spartan 17:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Christopherelliott (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - has come to edit the article Christopher Elliott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). However, I doubt this is the same person, and I'm wondering if in fact we shouldn't just block the username unless he says they're the same person. The Evil Spartan 14:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Also uploaded a huge number of professional-quality images claiming to be the creator/copyright holder. Videmus Omnia 15:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Get rid of the violating pictures. Bearian 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

They're tagged as GFDL. About the best I can do is mark them as "possibly unfree". Videmus Omnia 15:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Voicefarm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed the photo gallery with the edit summary "this is to remove the biography details causing the tagging to occur." I don't know what this means, exactly, but I do infer some sort of tandem relationship. — Athaenara ✉ 07:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

• Lish12381 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Obvious SPA and COI. User says on her user page that she is the promotions director for the above radio stations, and continues to add promotional material for her stations. Huge WP:OWN problems, as she constantly reverts any other addition to the articles (at least three other users). She has already been blocked once for 24 hours for spamming, and came back immediately after the block expired and began editing the articles again, reverting changes. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This may rise to the occasion of an indef block. A person who is a promotions director and adding this type of material, after previous blocks, appears to indeed warrant it. I would support an indef block, and, only if the user promises to stop, should she be allowed to continue to edit. The Evil Spartan 17:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

The contribution history of this user includes many reverts of the work of editors trying to enforce policy, for instance [12]. Since she seems to know that she's doing, and she's doing it anyway, I think a block would be justified. I thought she had stopped on 13 July, but the reverts continued on 16 July. Is it appropriate to make a posting at WP:AN/I? Is there some kind of a final warning that should be issued first? EdJohnston 18:01, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Per your note to me, I sent her an email laying out the potential consequences if she keeps this up, and promising to call her employer to see if this network abuse is OK with them. An indefinite block leading to community ban would be the only realistic remedy next time. Daniel Case 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Should the promotional material from the articles be removed (which will most likely result in more reverts) or should we wait till this clears up/the user responds to the email? Rockstar (^T/_C) 20:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I also decided to help her out a bit by adding the articles to the radio stations and NH projects (and referred her to them) if they weren't there already, and wrote fair-use rationales for the logos she uploaded (Two could stand to be reduced, and all could be made into transparent .PNGs, but that wasn't the most important thing at the time). I think she is genuinely contrite ... we'll see where this goes from here. Daniel Case 03:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pro-Gravity_Records (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - this provides the list of articles with which Lawofone may be in conflict of interest.
• Lawofone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Left licenses on Image:Enigmatic.cover.jpg, Image:Antiform.jpg, Image:200north.jpg, Image:Watchingtheworlddie.gif, Image:Distortedpenguins.jpg, and Image:Billiamrockwell.jpg that indicate a close relationship to the subject of the deleted articles. Also left this message declaring a close connection to Western Maryland bands. He/she recently recreated the deleted article Distorted Penguins. Sancho 17:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The articles have been deleted and, according to one of the most recent talk page posts by this editor, maybe this person is getting the point. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Drum Major Institute

• Drum Major Institute (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Drum Major Institute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Unclear what to do. Seems to be a notable org, but tone of article is promotional. YechielMan 14:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It seems notable, but What a mess of an article: Red Link City, USA. COI and messy articles seem to go hand in hand. Bearian 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And this edit violates NPOV, since Drum Major is a thinktank way to the left of the nonpartisan Brookings, which is characterized as "liberal." THF 16:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Note also:

• Chelesay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - spa (and sockpuppet/meatpuppet?) for DMI, created 12 June
• Andrea Batista Schlesinger (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - DMI official article created spammily by DMI and edited by Chelesay -- THF 11:23, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• 140.239.224.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has edited Drum Major Institute similarly to the above editors.

I notified the first two editors about possible coi issues, and recieved a reply from the first: [13]. I'm concerned that editor Drum Major Institute has continued editing both articles, including removing a likearesume tag, without contributing to the Talk pages of either. I'm hoping a note from another editor would be helpful. -- Ronz  20:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to close this one, but just a few hours ago coi spa Special:Contributions/Drum Major Institute removed the {{cleanup}} tag. — Athaenara ✉ 05:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I gave the user a general note about removing the clean-up tag on his/her talk page. Sancho 15:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Still self-editing as a SPA on July 3. -- THF 23:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikia / Wikimedia finances

I heard that the person who is in charge of the Wikimedia Foundation's finances is the very same person who is in charge of the for-profit Wikia, Inc.'s finances. Is that true? --Dude Manchap 03:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Durova^Charge! 20:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

So what if it is? I certainly trust them to do a good job if they are, and I'm sure that the board (who is in charge of the person) knows about this considering the owners of Wikia are previous board members. (...and the Board isn't stupid). Cbrown1023 talk 23:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine if you personally trust them, Cbrown1023, but you may want to look at the IRS form 1023 (no joke -- it's the same form number as the number found in your User name -- coincidence or irony?), especially what's said about Line 5a: A "conflict of interest" arises when a person in a position of authority over an organization, such as a director, officer, or manager, may benefit personally from a decision he or she could make. Note also Appendix A, starting at Page 25, which outlines a sample Conflict of Interest policy that a non-profit organization might adopt. Do you think that, as Appendix A suggests, either Jimmy Wales or Michael E. Davis have ever left the room during a Wikimedia Foundation board meeting, so that the other board members could discuss whether a conflict of interest was present for those two, who just happen to be former business partners and are currently vested in Wikia, which benefits from many, many favorable associations within Wikipedia? Jimmy Wales tried to hire a Wikipedia Arbitration Committee member onto Wikia. Wikia has many thousands of outbound links from Wikipedia, which point to pages monetized by Google AdSense ads. I guess, Cbrown1023, the question is not whether the Board "knows about this", but rather, why are they allowing such a gross appearance of conflict of interest to continue unabated? --Dude Manchap 03:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that the Wikimedia Foundation is doing something wrong, by all means file a complaint with them. Otherwise, please take this discussion elsewhere. This noticeboard isn't for solving legal problems. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not currently a legal problem. Nobody said it was. It is a Conflict of Interest problem. Another administrator has called it a "Good question", so why should it be swept under the rug and be "Resolved" by a non-administrator? --Dude Manchap 14:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again Dude. A few clarifications: you posted to ask whether there's a conflict of interest but haven't supplied much information. Normally requests to this board cite specific activity and evidence. And normally there's an onsite edit history to reference. If this person actually has registered and edits in a way that reflects a conflict of interest, this noticeboard might be able to accomplish something. If the conflict of interest relationship doesn't extend to actual editing activity then I have no direct power and only a little influence. Yet as the founder of Category:Eguor admins I'm particularly open to this type of request. Sure, why not investigate a Wikipedia/Wikia COI? Burden of evidence rests squarely on your shoulders. Go for it if it's particularly important to you. Just expect to shoulder most of the work yourself. I'll check it out, see if there's anything I can do about it, and possibly ask for broader input. That's as fair as I can be. Durova^Charge! 15:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, this is a wiki, so the burden of evidence isn't just on me -- it's on the other users who will hopefully see this thread and have enough "wikisleuthing" in their blood to check it out some more. I appreciate your support of it staying in the open, rather than being hastily "resolved", which really would have reflected poorly on the Foundation. For starters, people may wish to look at these discussions about the Wikia/Wikipedia conflict of interest:

• Joe Szilagyi blog
• Wikia article discussion in Wikipedia
• TechCrunch article by Nik Cubrilovic, including many illuminating comments
• Court case against Michael E. Davis, Treasurer of both Wikimedia Foundation and Wikia, Inc. This one is important, as it shows that Davis has not paid $817,830 that he was judged to owe the plaintiff. We are simultaneously being asked to "trust" that Davis will do a good job with the books at both Wikimedia and Wikia, Inc..—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs) 16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
• Wikimedia Form 990 (Line 80) indicates there is a financial "relationship" with Wikia, Inc.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs) 16:00, August 20, 2007 (UTC).
• Angela Beesley moved rejected Wikipedia articles to co-opt them for Wikia's benefit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Manchap (talk • contribs) 17:07, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Again, I look forward to whether anyone else will step up and investigate this further. --Dude Manchap 15:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(stepping over issues of whether this is the right page to talk about the subject)...indeed, board members and accountants both have fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of their organizations. By various laws and governance principles they have to recuse themselves or avoid involvement when there is a conflict. Even a perceived conflict can be corrosive to governance and is sometimes prohibited because people lose faith. Someone who is on the board of Wikimedia or does its finances and also has a financial stake in Wikia should be very careful about taking positions here on things that benefit Wikia by directing traffic there, banning things from Wikipedia so as to distinguish it from a commercial site, making Wikipedia less attractive to constituents than Wikia. Actions that seem to raise a conflict include banning commercial links, advertisements, fair use media, conflict-of-interest editors, etc., from Wikipedia so that people go to Wikia for that.Wikidemo 16:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Looking over those five links, two of them are specifically legal issues outside my expertise. I have no qualification to evaluate them. Joe Szlilagyi's blog is hardly a reliable source and another on-wikipedia thread was started by someone who's expended his credibility also. The techcrunch.com article holds water, in my opinion. What exactly are you seeking? If the basic complaint regards financial relationships at that level, then the most I could do would be to ask the WMF board to review this matter, and possibly to ask someone to institute nofollow to outgoing links to Wikia. My sysop tools would be useless to address this. Or is more forthcoming? Durova^Charge! 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki -- there's no telling if there is "more forthcoming" or not. Another example might be the Essjay situation. Essjay was nominated by Jimmy Wales to the Arbitration Committee -- the highest level of dispute resolution below the Board itself. Only a month earlier (I may be wrong about the timeline), Wales had also hired Essjay to work for Wikia, Inc. This took place this year, well after the issue of "Conflict of Interest" has been made so noticeable on Wikipedia, thanks in part (ironically) to Wales' discussions of editing by conflicted parties. Was it appropriate for Wales to nominate one of his Wikia employees to a position on the Arbitration Committee? I believe that question was obscured by the whole firestorm over Essjay's fabricated credentials. Yes, I think the Board of Directors should look at this entire matter; but do you realize that it should be while Wales and Davis and Beesley (and any other Wikia parties I may have missed) are not present in the room? The other factor that I think is important here is that this discussion remain open for some time. Already two non-admin users have attempted to hide it from plain view, with the reason being it belongs somewhere else. This seems very weak, being that this is a Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, and this is a conflict of interest issue. --Dude Manchap 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

How does this question have anything to do with the purpose of this page? Corvus cornix 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Philip Stanton

• Philip Stanton (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Stanton Studio (talk · contribs)
• 83.33.179.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) ←
• 83.33.177.219 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 83.50.145.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This article was created by an editor called Stanton Studio, probably in violation of conflicts rules and extensively edited by anonymous editors, with content that appears to be original research. Bearian 00:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed the conflict of interest. There is an equivalent article in the Spanish Wikipedia, es:Philip Stanton, which was authored by an identical username and an identical IP address, 83.33.etc. He doesn't seem to be notable, with about 150 Google hits for "Philip Stanton" with 1962, his year of birth, to distinguish him from other people with the same name. Because he has written and illustrated many books, he is not obviously nonnotable, so I have not decided to take any action. If you wish to be enterprising, you could try listing his article for deletion on the English and Spanish wikis. YechielMan 01:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No thanks. I agree that he's notable, so I won't tag it for deletion. However, I want to keep on the tag as a notice to readers and other editors. Bearian 13:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a {{uw-coi}} warning. Jehochman ^Talk 13:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarbanes-Oxley Act

• Sarbanes-Oxley Act (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

A WP:SPA who admits to "using several accounts to contribute" is repeatedly inserting links to an obscure talk-forum that consists mostly of spam in violation of WP:3RR, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and the consensus of an RFC. He rejects the talk-page consensus because the anon considers himself more of an "expert" than me. (This is irrelevant--WP:OWN--but the only evidence for the expertise appears to be recognizing the alleged value of the spam-link.) Some real WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TALK violations also on the talk-page and edit summaries. Real help needed from an administrator. THF 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Project Steve

• Project Steve (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- 66.47.51.78 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) has contributed to Project Steve, a project of the National Center for Science Education. The IP is registered to genie.ncseweb.org, and may in fact be the I.P. of Dr. Eugenie Scott's computer. Daisey cutter 03:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I hardly think updating the Steve count constitutes a conflict of interest. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)— Daisey cutter (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In fact, I would be grateful if the Clergy Letter Project, the Physicians and Surgeons for Scientific Integrity or the Discovery Institute would regularly update their counters for me. It is a huge pain in the butt to keep all these counters even sort of current, frankly. I also am highly doubtful if Dr. Scott herself would bother to log in every time the Steve Count changed. I think she has more demands on her time than that, frankly. It is interesting how someone just logs in with a new nic and all of a sudden knows a huge amount about wikilawyering however, isnt it?--Filll 06:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. Full disclosure: I'm a Steve, and I have updated that counter as welll.... --Stephan Schulz 07:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has been reminded of COI guidelines, and I'd expect any contributors from that I.P. to continue to take care to follow the guidance. .. dave souza, talk 08:31, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

To the extent that such "projects" are publicity stunts of specific organizations, having members or employees of such organizations tending these gardens, even to update counters, is a COI in my opinion, but I am considering other community opinions mentioned here. Would Wikipedia want Kent Hovind or somebody using an IP associated with his organization updating the progress of failed attempts to collect his infamous $250,000 reward/publicity stunt? Daisey cutter 13:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

<undent>I personally would have no problem with Kent Hovind updating a page on people who are attempting to get the 250,000$ prize. Why would that be a conflict of interest, especially if WP:RS and WP:V sources were used? Suppose he used his official website, or his newsletter, or magazine articles or newspaper articles as sources? Why could Hovind not update such a page? I a missing something here I suspect. Are people who are notable not allowed to do any editing of anything they know something about on WP? I think that is unreasonable. Part of what WP wants to do is to attract more subject matter experts. This kind of aggressive policy would drive them away. I still have not heard a response from Daisey cutter about whether he will accept my invitation to regularly update all the counters in this area. I would be very grateful, Daisey cutter, since this appears to be an area of interest to you. Please help me.--Filll 14:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thnaks for the opinion. I will continue to monitor conversations here on this page. I would have a problem with Kent H. or somebody at his organization using WP to keep articles on publicity stunts current, but we disagree. Daisey cutter 14:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please read the WP:COI policy. It does not bar editors with a conflict of interest from editing, so long as they comply with NPOV and other Wikipedia policies. Your reports are a disruptive misuse of the COI/N board. THF 14:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

All right everyone, repeat after me: Having a conflict of interest does not bar an editor from contributing to an article. The notice at the top of this page says it all:

Note that compliance with the COI guideline does not require editors with a conflict of interest to avoid editing altogether. This page is for situations that require intervention because of persistent actions in mainspace that fail to comply with Wikipedia's conflict of interest guideline. An editor with a conflict of interest who has disclosed a conflict and is discussing proposed changes on the talk page is complying with the guideline, as is an editor who is making non-controversial changes in mainspace that are consistent with other Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Please, please, please don't post a report on this noticeboard unless there is actually a problem with tendentious editing. Uncontroversial edits that improve and update our articles are not a problem. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks TenOfAllTrades, your advice sounds very wise. Daisey cutter 14:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please check to see if "Happy Couple" and "Daisey cutter" are posting from the same block of addresses? --Wesley R. Elsberry 00:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That requires checkuser permissions. It's not likely to happen. MER-C 13:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bride burning

498a (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User 498a's name is a reference to India's anti-dowry law, section 498a. They are adding links (which break WP:EL because its a link to unverified research and//or a personal site) to an anti-Section 498a site to Bride burning (the subject of which is dowry killing).[14] It is possible that this user is the person behind that site since its name is "www.498a-misuse.sojos.net". The articles Bride burning has had problems with COI edits in the past. The same links were added to Dowry law in India[15], Dowry[16], Human rights in India[17], Non-resident Indian and Person of Indian Origin[18] and Indian penal code[19] --Cailil ^talk 17:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

spamlinks reverted, spam warning given. -- THF 21:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

MobyGames/ Flipkin

• Special:Linksearch/*.mobygames.com
• Flipkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User:Flipkin has established himself [20] as David Berk, a co-founder of the MobyGames website and has added some 900 links to the website, all still there, right up to his most recent edit [21]. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#mobygames.com [22]. There seem to be an associated farm of socks which have got the site up to over 6000 links. Some legit editors defend some of the links and any clean up would be messy. --BozMo talk 10:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the general problem when 'good' links are spammed. I would strongly advocate a clean up off all links added by this and sock-accounts (per WP:SPAM; "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."; ). Established editors can then revert the edits where they can justify the links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

For something of that magnitude, I would hope the linked websites would be blacklisted. --Butseriouslyfolks 04:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There's two templates which transclude most of the spam. I've nominated them for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 9. MER-C 06:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Clever. If only he had used his power for good instead of evil . . . Nice catch. Should we disable the links in the template in the meantime or leave them for reviewers at the TfD? --Butseriouslyfolks 06:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I urge you to reconsider this decision. Having glanced over the COI page, th only material that seems like it might apply to the links that have been made thus far would be under the following:

Conflict of interest often presents itself in the form of self-promotion, including advertising links, personal website links, personal or semi-personal photos, or other material that appears to promote the private or commercial interests of the editor, or their associates.

1. Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links).
2. Links that appear to promote otherwise obscure individuals by pointing to their personal pages.
3. Biographical material that does not significantly add to the clarity or quality of the article.

From this I would say that 1. doesn't apply because the links are not obscure, are relevant to many of the game pages being linked and are not commercial except in the sense that the site in question contains ads within the pages and even merchanting links generated to amazon.com and ebay. I would say that 2. doesn't apply because mobygames is a public project and not a "personal page" in any sense. In fact, all edits by flipkin can be viewed from his own page on the site, and certainly don't cover every aspect or even the majority of content. 3. may or may not apply in some cases, but since the "biographies" of various individuals (game develeopers) is dynamically updated on the Mobygames infrastructure, that means that information is constantly updating and becoming more complete. Like wikipedia, actual biographies, photos and other information must be contributed by users and in many cases, pages linked to will not be "complete" in any sense, similar to many wikipedia pages on various individuals.

Full disclosure: I am also associated with the Mobygames game project and am considered "staff" for the website. (Apologies for if I haven't used the wikipedia formatting codes properly in this comment, I don't use them often enough.) --WildKard 08:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the bit you overlooked is: "How to avoid COI edits... avoid... 3. Linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);"--BozMo talk 11:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia:Spam and Wikipedia:External links as well. They clearly state that massive linking of this sort is not allowed on Wikipedia. nadav (talk) 09:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Funny, I did that, and right on #3 of what to link to is "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." Are you saying MobyGames doesn't qualify under the 'amount of detail' section, especially credits? --Trixter 06:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

This is a COI notice board. You founded a website and you added hundreds of links to it in Wikipedia. That's a conflict of interest violation. --BozMo talk 13:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Trixter and Bhirt have also declared themselves as MobyGames founders in the TfD discussion. --BozMo talk 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You must have missed the part in WP:SPAM that says: Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. nadav (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal

Looking at the various discussions around on this one there seems to be a lot of support for the idea that we delete the 3500 or so links added by the hard-core COI spammers, put those gentlemen all on a final warning and leave the broader community to sort out any worth adding back over time. Anyone agree/disagree? Anyone got an obvious bot to hand capable of doing this (given the links are all templated and the list of spammed articles we could put together)? --BozMo talk 21:43, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe the number of links spammed is closer to 5500. Other than User:Frecklefoot and User:Krótki, no established editors have added a large number of mobygames.com links. On my survey I found an incredible number of SPA's adding moby links in a very systematic fashion; for example alphabetically, or for exactly one calendar year (Jan 1 - Dec 31). The SPA's get warned, some get blocked, but they always return under a new name. Another problem I see repeating is when User:Mathsgeek deleted a bunch of moby spam, the WP:VG community blindly reverted all of it. I like BozMo's proposal but I don't think it is going to work. (Requestion 00:02, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I think if we do it with an edit summary linked to an explanation page then we would have a good case for warning and sanctioning mindless reverts of links to empty pages. --BozMo talk 11:43, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't there a nuclear option where persistent spammers have their links automatically banned by a bot? Sounds like a job for AN/I. -- THF 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with BozMo. We can then leave it to regular page editors whether to add the links back. Alternatively, if new SPA's continue to spam then the site will have to be added to the blacklist. Has WikiProject Spam been consulted? nadav (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

(Yep! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#mobygames.com) JoeSmack ^Talk 14:47, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Spamming shouldn't be tolerated for even a second. DurinsBane87 12:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Total support for implementation of BozMo's proposal. — Athaenara ✉ 08:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

And nadav's. — Athaenara ✉ 09:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The last three comments sum up my opinion entirely. Do not tolerate Spam. Nuke Spammed links and let CVG community re-add the useful ones. If they spam again blacklist the whole site. - X201 12:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with X201. After much discussion here, the Mobygames site appears to have some value as an ext link, analogous to IMDB for films. However, if we were aware that the owner of IMDB was adding links to its site by the thousand, we would never tolerate it. The links added in spam fashion have to go. --Butseriouslyfolks 16:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Nuke 'em, but keep the templates. MobyGames has some great content (which means the template is still useful), but note I say some; a large number of entries are even stubbier than Wikipedia's, and yet these users have been adding links to them regardless of quality or relevance. Garrett^Talk 23:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

The template is the reason for the massive spamming. It offers an umbrella to work under. Likewise, many inexperienced editors think they should add the template to any plausible article simply because it exists. Nuking the links without nuking the template would make little sense. The template is the problem. The spammign would never have occured without it. And there is no downside as valid links can be added where appropriate like every other site. Special treatment led to abuse. The real issue needs to be addressed. 2005 21:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds entirely reasonable for me. I guess if the template is the problem because other websites/communities are not using a template for their own linking to relevant articles, then we should not have it either. --WildKard 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

3 comments

I'm going to copy and paste 3 comments from the TfD, because I believe they're important for you to read:

One problem for me is the complete lack of attempt to mention the issue at either of the templates' talkpages, or to change its instructions to regulate usage to only useful Moby entries. The instructions for TfD state: "If a template is being misused, consider clarifying its documentation to indicate the correct use, or informing those that misuse it, rather than nominating it for deletion." --Quiddity 23:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

So why not be bold and do it? As for changing instructions, a much wider community worked on WP:EL so perhaps you could just link to that. But we aren't talking about odd innocent editors. We are talking about the systematic addition of mainly shallow links to thousands of pages by a group of people who aggressively reply to queries with "its all agreed". I don't think there is any chance at all that this gang would be influence by comments on a template, even if you just posted "see WP:EL" probably it would just get deleted. Most communities on WP are a bit better at self regulation on these kind of things. That's how it should be --BozMo talk 06:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The wp:point is, why didn't you?

I only noticed this TfD by accident, and am dismayed and disappointed at the zealous/crusading/confrontational attitudes towards other editors (e.g. this comment by BozMo, this initial comment by Hahnchen, ignoring things like the 2 warnings Flipkin gave User talk:69.139.77.86, etc) and towards a free, community-driven reference-project (sound familiar?). More so than that, I'm frankly disturbed at your current discussion of a law-in-your-own-hands solution at WP:COIN#Proposal.

As Lendorien stated: "Hate to say it, but someone has been going around deleting all the mobygames links from every game article, regardless of whether mobygames link has more or useful information about the game. In some cases, the mobygames link has been the ONLY SOURCE for the article.--Lendorien 23:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)" Is that going to happen again?

And now you are seriously, nay, eagerly, contemplating razing Wikipedia of links to an incredibly useful resource. Slash and burn should only be a last resort solution, where the vast good will outweigh any harm, and that is not even close to the case here (see the thread about featured articles, above. and that's just the featured articles...).

It reminds me of the theory about how police officers should be required to regularly spend a little time working with innocent children or animals, instead of just criminals all the time. You're all displaying a bad attitude, that is not helpful to anyone concerned in the end, and that needs to be made abundantly clear. --Quiddity 04:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

End of copy. Uses of "You" intended in the selective/encompassing sense, not singular.

If you do anything like "nuking" the links to a useful reference, purely to chastise a handful of editors who almost certainly thought they were helping both sites (worldwideweb), you're going to be doing a lot more harm than good, and end up pissing off a lot of bystanders. Please please, take a calm and measured approach, and do not take unilateral action based on the single-minded consensus displayed above. Thank you for reading. --Quiddity 16:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I have re-read these comments and appreciate your good faith opinion on the matter which is at one end of the spectrum of good faith opinions I have seen expressed. I am even happy to believe that the TfD which appeared on every one of 6500 links on CVG pages you were lucky to notice by accident. As for the personal overtones you use in terms of "zealous/crusading/confrontational" I am happy to leave anyone to judge my comments and style in raising the issue with a few COI editors versus the way in which you have approached people who in good faith removed some of these links. What I am missing in the above though is your suggestion on what we should do next (apart from your parody of what you think we are proposing). --BozMo talk 17:34, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Quiddity, I think your position is persuasive in the TfD discussion but not here. The question there is whether the template should be deleted because it has been used excessively to spam WP. Your position indicates that there are appropriate uses for the template, as the linked site often has value, so it should be retained.

Here, however, the question is how should we respond to a large-scale linkspamming operation conducted by an editor with a COI. These links were added indiscriminately without regard to whether the content at the linked site warranted the links. Nevertheless, even if most of them were warranted, they are still spam posted by a user with a COI problem. Useful spam links are still spam links. "Live with the COI spam because it might be useful" is not a workable position here, as it invites spammers to linkspam WP in the hopes that some users will find their links useful.

In a perfect world, we could assign several paid employees the editorial task of reviewing each of these links for propriety and deleting only the inappropriate links. However, we don't have those kinds of resources. The proper course here is to delete the links added en masse in the same manner as they were added -- indiscriminately. Warn the user but don't blacklist the site yet. --Butseriouslyfolks 18:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

To all: I've replied to BozMo at User talk:Quiddity#Hi with some of the background thoughts and impetus I'm bringing to this issue. Just pointing there to assuage any curiosity, and to further clarify who/what I'm frustrated with.

Here, I'm really trying to make it clear that something is amiss, when the possibility of blacklisting such a site is mentioned, after so little has been done to assist the users at fault from making further mistakes.

• Examine User talk:Flipkin: He was welcomed and then encouraged/assisted with the usage of the template back in September 2005, then out of the blue he was warned 5 days ago.
• User talk:TnS, was warned by Chicken Wing in January 2007, and then when TnS offered a measured and intelligent response Chicken Wing replied "Sounds fine. ...".
• User talk:Krótki was warned for the first time 5 days ago. Welcomed in Jan 2006
• User talk:Corn Popper was warned for the first time 5 days ago. Welcomed in Jan 2005
• User talk:Ravimakkar was stomped on in January 2006, but was then told "You don't have to be sorry. ...".
• User talk:69.139.77.86 was warned twice by Flipkin not to add links unless they were definitely useful.

And that's it from the list of offenders (those who added 50+ links, excluding frecklefoot. and I'm simplifying, but you get the point). Possibly I'm missing some pertinent facts (?), but after many hours of reading and discussing, I'm left with an uncomfortable feeling that there is a lot more Bite than Good going on, and I'm trying to (emphatically) point that out in the only way I can.

Thanks again for reading. I really do appreciate the work that Coin and wpspam does, I'm just trying to supply an outside perspective on this particular issue, which seems to be getting potentially way-overblown. --Quiddity 20:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Quiddity. I'd like to remove User:Krótki from your list above and add User:Corn Popper, User:59.182.37.97, and User:63.212.164.226. The accounts in the above list are not real editors, they are WP:SPA and I suspect several of them to be the same person. They mass spam, get warned, blocked, create a new account, and repeat. They are what we call serial spammers. Have you looked at the contribution logs for those accounts? The only thing we could do to assist is to help them add mobygames.com links since that's all that they care about. (Requestion 02:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

(Corn Popper added, but) Those IPs haven't even gotten a welcome/warning template yet... This is exactly the kind of bad faith/bite attitude I'm trying to point out above.

To try and explain it another way: Some people contribute without reading any more than the warnings and suggestions from just below the edit window (if that). Someone might see that a link to imdb is missing from a movie article, adds it, then goes through all their favourite movies to check that each one has it. I did that in the distant past. Others work alphabetically, because it's straightforward, and that's what they think will help. Look at List of health topics (S); someone started there, and hopes to return to finish it later or hopes someone else will. That's how this place works (One of many). wp:iar is policy to prevent exactly this kind of overenthusiastic wikilawyering. I'm probably shooting myself in the foot by repetitively trying to help you understand, but I know of no other way to expand your world view to encompass what it currently does not.

[Perhaps I should've posted these comments at WPSPAM... Sigh. It's tough giving unsolicited "Working with others" feedback to multiple people. Sorry to those uninvolved, I usually try not to be this verbose. Feedback would be appreciated though...] --Quiddity 04:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Requestion: You just now added 3 templates at once to User talk:63.212.164.226, a user that hasn't edited since January 2007, and to User talk:69.139.77.86 whom hasn't edited since August 2006, and to User talk:59.182.37.97 whom has only made 12 edits. This is very bad faith. You are gaming the warning templates.

And before you accuse me of stalking, bear in mind that researching and analysing the activities of individual users in order to come to an objective set of conclusions is part of what you are meant to be doing too, as part of investigating possible spam/coi problems. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?: "Who will watch the watchers?". Anyone who notices problems, that's who. --Quiddity 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes Quiddity. You are absolutely correct and thank you for stalking. The edits of those IP addresses were in extremely bad faith. You might not be aware of this but in SPAM and COI cases it's standard practice that all socks are considered to be the same individual / entity. I also just found User:68.46.123.33 who is an extremely interesting sock. That IP address has been banned, indefinitely blocked, and somehow added 300 mobygames.com external links. The more I dig the more interesting it gets. (Requestion 00:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

The User:68.46.123.33 case is interesting. I'm also curious as to how that happened.

However, that doesn't address why you added 3 levels of warning templates at once, to users like User:TnS. Is that standard practice too? It seems overtly hostile, and is gaming-the-system in my opinion.

Are there any admins who could weigh in please? --Quiddity 01:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I could I guess. WP:BITE and WP:AGF are important but we also allow an appropriate treatment recognition of "obvious socks". The disagreement is because you look at a pattern of use and read it as "clearly" something different to how requestion does. I think that takes us beyond policy into subjective judgement. I would personally say that a single anon IP who you suspect to be a sock and does nothing but add a dozen links to a site with spamming issues you probably on balance get guided by WP:BITE and WP:AGF, and talk to them gently, but by the time you have multiple such accounts all similar the chances there are genuine naive users behind them becomes vanishing small. So, I am with Requestion on this one. You are welcome to ask another Admin of course. --BozMo talk 20:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I meant an uninvolved admin... However you didn't address the only question I asked: Is it standard practice to put 3 levels of warning templates at once on pages like User talk:TnS and User talk:59.182.37.97? Does that not seem excessive and rude? I understand jumping straight to a high-level template is normal, but not posting 3 at once. --Quiddity 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

What is your problem Quiddity? You follow me around and throw wrenches into the Wikipedia machinery like you are trying to make a WP:POINT about spammer sympathy. User:TnS already had a warning from Chicken Wing and Nposs. I just added a 3rd warning but those previous warnings don't even matter. Like I said, it is standard practice to inherit warnings across accounts. Also many spam fighters start at a spam4 warning in cases of mass spamming which +1600 links definitely qualifies. (Requestion 02:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Well, yes I added a lot of MobyGames links alphabetically to stub video game articles. I can't say anything new, just repeat myself: "I do not work for MobyGames and I am not affiliated with them in any ways. If you noticed I have added MobyGames links mostly to game stub pages. Game stub pages are usually quite uninformative without screenshots." If you noticed I've not added a single link to MobyGames since the warning of Nposs. And thus I would like to ask the removal of the "Courtesy messages" section from my talk page because it is quite embarassing. I did all the additions with good intentions, according to Talk:MobyGames#MobyGames template. I understand that I made a mistake because of adding too many links to low content pages on MobyGames. But that was because of the lack of rules. Someone should update the MobyGames template page and the Talk:MobyGames#MobyGames template section with the guidelines/rules of correct linking to MobyGames. The NeveR SLeePiNG 00:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello TnS. Wow, your response was quick. I have a deal for you. I'll remove the "Courtesy messages" on your talk page if you agree to remove the 1600 mobygames.com external links / templates that you added. Seems fair. What do you think? (Requestion 02:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC))

Not all the 1600 links are bad, most of them contains more value than the Wikipedia article. That's why I need the guidelines/rules so I can make the removal according to them. The NeveR SLeePiNG 11:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The TfD was closed as no consensus. I'll repeat the proposed solution I left there near the end. "The only actual concerning accounts I can determine from the list of suspects are User talk:68.46.123.33 and User talk:69.139.77.86, the edits by those two accounts could legitimately be reverted en masse.". (And any of the edits made after 4 October 2006 by User talk:Ravimakkar too). (The details behind that suggestion are scattered throughout this thread and the TfD, and the contexts are in the individuals talkpages, so I won't repeat it all here.) I don't know much about bots, but I believe mass-reverting the edits of individual editors is a fairly straightforward process? Ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests for more info, I'd imagine. Thanks. --Quiddity 17:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Only 2 IP's and a small fraction of Ravimakkar edits? You've got to be kidding. With all due respect Quiddity, your understanding of this situation is woefully inadequate. Please stop interfering. Please stop being a hindrance. Please stop throwing wrenches into the Wikipedia machinery. And please stop following me around. (Requestion 17:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC))

Please please try to assume good faith. I'll give the single example one more time, and let you examine the evidence yourself.

• User talk:Flipkin. As of September 2006 he had been welcomed, and encouraged in the use of the mobygames template. The first mention of the COI guideline/problem was (the next edit) June 8 2007, the day before the TfD.

If he didn't know he was doing something wrong, we can't punish him for it.

(and just to clarify, I was explaining to BozMo how I stumbled upon the mobygames thread, as a reply to his disbelief. I'm just trying to be honest and transparent, in action and motive. (Don't label me just because I happened to agree with anything the argumentative timeshifter said!)) Thanks. --Quiddity 02:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

To be clear if it was a question of "doing something to Flipkin" I could have just done it (sinister laugh). This COI seeks a consensus on some sort of bot removal of links which were put in by Flipkin, and also by a series of SPA IP accounts. Also it has brought up an issue on WP:EL since Quiddity has a view (I hope I am being fair) that we should link to every page which has any information not in the WP article. Getting clarity on that and guidelines for when to link to MG would be a good outcome. --BozMo talk 08:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Cutting to the chase

Has the massive and obvious overlinking been reduced or not? — Athaenara ✉ 01:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK nothing has been done yet. I'm finishing up the the WP:COIN#EServer.org case and then I'll get to the mobygames.com overlinking. (Requestion 17:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC))

Lest anybody continue in the belief that mobygames.com is a reliable source, let me offer two rebuttals:

(1.) http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,257587/

"He is originally from Quatloo, Alberta, Canada." Oh, I doubt that.

(interjected) I must concur, I do not know this gentleman and have never been to Alberta. Also, I agree that Mobygames.com is not a WP:RS. Not because it contains errors -- everything contains errors, including reliable sources -- but for other reasons. Quatloo 00:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

(2.) http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,4916/

One of his projects was "wwwwolf: Armageddon". That's funny, I heard they were very picky about their content.

My conclusion from this experiment is that this site is not as useful or appropriate for linkage as we were led to believe. It's absolutely not reliable. --Butseriouslyfolks 23:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I should add that the content I quoted from mobygames.com is plaintext. I added the links to relevant users here so that other readers would understand the significance of the names. Also, in fairness, I should add that my attempt to add "Quiddity, Oregon" as the birthplace of another developer was rejected pending further information from me, such as a source. So at least somebody there is paying attention. --Butseriouslyfolks 01:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

How to wrap this up

I believe that the consensus here is to nuke all the links, and then let non-COI editors re-add them on a case by case basis. Do any of think we should do something else? There's this great thing called Google that people can use if they want to find more information about a subject. There's no real need for all these external links. It looks like a link campaign to me. By the way, not all Wikipedia mirrors use Nofollow, and Wikipedia links still deliver visitors. - Jehochman ^Talk 23:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I asked Bozmo what to do, and he said he might try to find someone uninvolved to have a look.

I'll repeat my own perspective here, for conciseness:

1. There was a Conflict of Interest behind some of the links, but the people at fault didn't know (they hadn't been notified/warned, and in some cases were intially encouraged to use the template, eg Flipkin).
2. The site is notable, as established by the references added at MobyGames; but not perfectly reliable, as established at WP:COIN#Cutting to the chase.
3. Many of the links that were added by a couple of accounts are not useful (the links don't provide additional or corroborative information to the articles) and so should be removed.
4. Many of the links, including those in 24 featured articles, should remain.
5. There is no current consensus on what to do.

That's the very short version, from my perspective.

The main threads are here, with recent background discussion archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jun#mobygames.com and Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_June_9#Template:Moby_developer. I'd be happy to provide/point out the evidence again, for any specific questions regarding this perspective.

I strongly object to a "delete everything and start over" solution, as being more harmful than beneficial. Possibly the folks at WP:CVG have alternative suggestions/solutions, I'll ask there later tonight (I've got to go now). Thanks. --Quiddity 20:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not involved. I think nuking is counterproductive. We have plenty of violations of WP:EL in Wikipedia that we shouldn't be creating false negatives for the sake of a procedural misunderstanding. While it's appropriate to make case-by-case determinations to remove mobygames links, I don't see it as any worse than the IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes links we provide. The link-adding was not tendentious and, in the absence of edit-warring to include the links, I don't have a problem with it, though, in the future, the links should be added by uninvolved parties. THF 20:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Are all the COI editors properly notified, and are we convinced that they aren't going to do any more link additions? If so, we can close this. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I've notified Flipkin of this consensus, and asked him to abide by WP:COIC and WP:SCOIC. (He hasn't had a chance to respond.) Is there someone else who should get that notice? THF 15:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any others listed at the top. We should avoid alphabet soup. A good first read for any business with COI is Wikipedia:Business' FAQ. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The other two editors who self-identified as being associated with the site, Trixter and Bhirt, were already notified of COI rules. I'm pleased to see that Trixter has actually continued editing since then (he's been editing since 2004), so we didn't scare off all the volunteers!

I added instructions to the templates in June, eg Template talk:Moby developer, so it shouldn't be a problem in the future. --Quiddity 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Amtrak

Resolved.

If you look at these articles (you might have to look in the history to find the edit before mine):

• Yazoo City, Mississippi#Rail Transportation
• Hammond, Louisiana#Rail Transportation
• McComb, Mississippi#Rail Transportation
• Etc.

you'll find that each one gives the you an accurate scheduling information about different trains and then it links, through a see also tag, it to the article on the railway station of that city, someone will have to go and delete everything because it's written like an advertisement, and I reported it because it a wide range of spamming (too much for me to handle) and it might be corporate policy of the Amtrak company to do this or something. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be a Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains issue. I don't see a WP:COI/N issue here unless members of that Wikiproject are being paid by Amtrak. Try an AFD on one of the articles if you find the Amtrak station articles inappropriate, but I imagine the consensus is going to be to keep them around. THF 20:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Gbooks24 / KatieSimon

• Gbooks24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• KatieSimon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 199.106.94.136 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

An admitted employee of Simon & Schuster using the above registered usernames and IP is posting numerous S&S author bios using text copied from other websites, including the S&S website. I posted the info to the spamdalism noticeboard and an admin left a very nice message for the editor in question explaining WP:C. I think the WP:COI concern is much more substantial. Another editor notified her of WP's COI policy, and I asked her to disclose her identity on the article's talk pages, but she is reluctant to do so. I think the idea of a major publisher posting copyvio bios of its authors on WP is highly inappropriate and borders on User:MyWikiBiz. Anybody agree? --Butseriouslyfolks 20:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, highly inappropriate and violate WP:NOT. — Athaenara ✉ 22:39, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, also: I have requested a move of Kate brian to Kate Brian. This is one of the articles created by User:KateSimon. Bearian 00:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The two registered accounts have been inactive since 8 and 11 June, but 199.106.94.136 was still actively linkspamming yesterday. — Athaenara ✉ 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Financial Access Initiative

• Financial Access Initiative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Christina Barrineau (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Financial access (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• '07Student (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - [Added by Athaenara ✉ at 04:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)]

Every thing matches, but I can't tell if there's a conflict. The articles were edited by the same user, and Barrineau is a director of Financial Access Initiative. Smoke? Bearian 00:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

First person "article" + username similar to company title = blatant spam + conflict of interest. MER-C 08:29, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure about the second article, seems plausibly notable. MER-C 02:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Omaha Steaks

→ See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Nasty mess of SPAs at Omaha Steaks

• Omaha Steaks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article mentions Omaha Steaks' history of spamming and their listing at Spamhaus.
• Beth Weiss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This account has only ever edited the Omaha Steaks article, and the name "Beth Weiss" is that of Omaha Steaks' "corporate communications director" according to this article. I left a pointer to WP:COI on her talk page and invited her to talk about it on the Omaha Steaks talk page, but instead she keeps adding inaccurate info to the article.
• 208.249.105.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This IP has two edits to the Omaha Steaks article, and the IP reverse-resolves to "mailer.omahasteaks.com".
• M161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This account only has a single edit, which was to "sanitize" the Omaha Steaks page
• Dsimon12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Same as above
• 70.171.169.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Same as above. According to an IP geolocation site, this is an Omaha, Nebraska IP address
• 70.187.26.152 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - another possible spa. Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• 24.252.62.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - another possible spa. Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• Os032007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) another possible spa. Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Oops, looking at contribs, seems to be a spa on the other side of the issue. Videmus Omnia 04:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, the case of Os032007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is even stranger. Their older edits support Omaha Steaks, and their later edits seem to support the other side. But the later edits in support of the other side say "Undid revision X by Gkudrna", and as far as I can tell, this user is Gkudrna, as evidenced here. Their most recent contrib where they blanked the talk page here seems to support Omaha Steaks. My thinking is that "Gkudrna" realized that their username could be tied to Omaha Steaks quite easily, so they undid their own edits and changed their username to something random in an effort to hide the association. Os032008 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) (note slightly different number) is an SPA for the other side. Power piglet 05:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Gkudrna=Gary Kudrna, beef producer? Stranger and stranger...Videmus Omnia 05:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Along with Snakesouls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), Censorship-is-evil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and 24.252.34.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Videmus Omnia 04:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The "Beth Weiss" account and the 208.249.105.221 IP seem like blatant COI to me. Power piglet 22:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Beth Weiss is the Corporate Communications Director for Omaha Steaks, see the bottom of this page. Videmus Omnia 22:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And Dsimon12 (talk · contribs) is almost certainly associated as well - the Simon family are the founders of the company and still fill most of the corporate offices. Videmus Omnia 23:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly Dan Simon, referenced here. Videmus Omnia 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I torched the most blatantly promotional text -- after which there isn't much left to the article. Raymond Arritt 15:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've warned everybody. Next time one of these single purpose accounts makes an improper edit to this article, they should be blocked as a disruptive account. None of these are here to build an encyclopedia. Jehochman ^Talk 03:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

70.171.169.139 (talk · contribs) has challenged by editing again and blanking the COI warning from their talkpage. Videmus Omnia 03:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Are these folks slow learners, unfamiliar with WP policy, or what? They've got to know this doesn't look good on top of their earlier incidents with spam. Raymond Arritt 03:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset) One of the IPs, User:70.171.169.139, responded after I recreated the warning. As long as they are talking with us and no obviously trying to stall, we should just revert their edits. No blocks needed just yet. I think these are newbies who need help countering bias introduced by their competitors. We have to explain how a corp can use the article talk pages and COIN to get help when needed. Jehochman ^Talk 06:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

70.187.26.152 and 24.252.62.197 are very Likely, same ISP as 70.171.169.139 and are in nearby Bellevue, Nebraska. MER-C 09:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Beth Weiss (talk · contribs) has resumed the editing today. Videmus Omnia 03:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

R. John Hayes

• SportAbility Alberta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Knights of the North (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• R. John Hayes (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are all being contributed to by Angelos2812 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) such that I believe said user is Hayes or knows him well. The articles he is adding to are all things Hayes is involved with personally. MSJapan 18:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alberta Cerebral Palsy Sports Association. MER-C 08:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tassajara Zen Mountain Center

Article

• Tassajara Zen Mountain Center (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (Stub begun October 2006)

Single-purpose accounts

• Gmcwbc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - October 2006 (2 edits)
• Marathon490 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - June 2007 (5 edits)
• 67.86.221.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - July 2007

• (Marathon490 and 67.86.221.27 have edited this article and Eli Whitney Students Program only)

• 64.252.4.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - July 2007
• 64.252.8.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - July 2007 +

A primarysources reminder was placed (by me) last month.

67.86.221.27 removed it soon after and began adding material including detailed schedules from proprietary sfzc.org webpages and unreferenced accolades.

I {{fact}}-tagged the unreferenced and non-neutral statements, found some references, began adding them and, after they were removed, posted a request for a third opinion. Two days ago, user Thw1309 offered one on the article talk page.

64.252.4.220 ("Having lived at Tassjara [sic] for several years, I can vouch for …") began similar edits yesterday, removing all references other than links to the proprietary webpages. Whatever patience I had for explaining encyclopedic neutrality policies has been exhausted - the users just ignore them. — Athaenara ✉ 00:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I left a {{uw-delete1}} warning for 64.252.4.220 (talk • contribs • count) for removal of properly-referenced content with no edit summary and no Talk discussion. From the above list, no logged-in editor has touched the article since the end of June. Since the trouble comes from two different IP accounts, semi-protection might be considered. EdJohnston 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Tension now reduced, since a conversation is occurring at Talk:Tassajara Zen Mountain Center, about the use of reliable sources. EdJohnston 15:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

(Added userlinks for 64.252.8.47 above.) — Athaenara ✉ 06:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dan Bazuin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Could User:Thebazattack be this person? Grandmasterka 21:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't tell. It's a vandalism only account however, so you can block it indefinitely (if it edits negatively again) and we can close this report. MER-C 13:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Edhegs

• Edhegs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User created page Edward Hagenkotter which was speedy deleted. User has also created Slasher's Massacre and The Night They Didn't Come Home (both nominated for deletion) listing "Edward Hagenkotter" as the director, producer and co-writer and with links to a myspace page with the same username (http://www.myspace.com/edhegs). This page links to a Freewebs page showing the owner as "Ed Hagenkotter". Dbromage [Talk] 04:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted both articles, let's see if he recreates them. MaxSem 08:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

User:91.84.189.167

91.84.189.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

• Many edits from this account inserting unrelated spam link to article. Links repeatedly re-added on revert. No other edits. Quatloo 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a simple case of spamming. See Wp:spam#Warning_spammers. --Ronz 22:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Energybase (talk · contribs)

Energybase seems to be intimately connected with the organisations BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Energy Finance Directory, which I've prodded as they fail to establish any real notability. He's also very liberal with the external links and pretty keen on:

• UNEP - United Nations Environment Program
• CDM - Clean Development Mechanism
• CDM Gold Standard
• Global Environment Facility
• Klaus Töpfer

I've advised of WP:EL, WP:COI and the prods. Deiz talk 13:16, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

BASE - Basel Agency for Sustainable Energy and Sustainable Energy Finance Directory prodded, contested, AfD'd. Deiz talk 12:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Eugenie Scott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) -- 66.47.51.78 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) linked to the NCSE, has contributed to Eugenie Scott, an article about the current head of the NCSE. (The contributions were quite a few years ago.) Daisey cutter 14:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So? THF 14:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a noticeboard. The so, if any, is for the community to discuss. Daisey cutter 14:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Per my note a couple of sections up, please read the instructions at the top of this page before posting. This noticeboard is meant to deal with ongoing problems, not potential years-old conflicts of interest. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur that this issue doesn't resemble those normally handled here. Still, nothing prevents an editor from rewriting an article that has a promotional tone, or reads like a resume. If you are tempted to rewrite the Eugenie Scott article, you could ask on this noticeboard for volunteers to review your changes. EdJohnston 04:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

COI is Likely for that IP. Same geographical area. MER-C 06:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

That IP address is the NCSE office IP address. They've been apprised as of 2007/08/17 of the WP:COI and WP:AUTO policies, and have publicly apologized for any appearance of impropriety, and have implemented an organizational policy upholding Wikipedia policies and integrity. Beyond that, if one looks at the content of the edits made from that IP, one does not find any pattern of egregious POV changes to articles.

The "Daisey cutter" user, on the other hand, has a specific agenda in trying to denigrate NCSE, and is using Wikipedia procedures to try to falsely impugn their actions and, apparently, put articles about NCSE at risk of major change or deletion. A perusal of "Daisey cutter"'s contributions shows that NCSE-related editing comes close to be the only thing on Wikipedia that user has been interested in. --Wesley R. Elsberry 11:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Antoni Dunin

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antoni Dunin (2nd nomination)

Resolved. Now at AFD

Antoni Dunin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This is just one of the articles about her family that Elonka (talk · contribs) created a year ago (see more at User:Elonka/Genealogy). She thus violated WP:COI multiple times and was never warned for it. Most of these articles are poorly sourced or unsourced and full of OR. I have tried to deal with these articles but have been blocked, threatened with RfC's and blocks. As one editor said, anyone could create such articles about our non-notable family members. Will justice ever be implemented for these articles, or will we allow this vanispam to continue to exist on Wikipedia? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

An article violates COI only if it POV-pushes. These are straightforward biographies. If there is OR, address the OR by adding fact tags and deleting if not fixed within a reasonable amount of time. Antoni Dunin is marginal (and can be addressed by an AfD, which I have brought), but the other articles don't seem to be problematic. I don't see the editor claiming ownership of the page, or editing tendentiously, so this isn't really a COI/N issue. THF 18:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. Since I've been involved in the article a lot and may cause other people to think I'm not impartial in this dispute, I'll stay away from the AfD for now although the individual is definitely not notable enough. If it survives, I'll work on implementing your advice, which is what I've been doing before (marking with an OR tag etc). --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. And given the WP:ANI discussion, WP:COOL suggests you let other editors handle these articles so that the content dispute doesn't become further personalized. People are aware of them, and the policy violations are not so outrageous that Wikipedia will collapse if they are left uncured. I've only looked at a sample of articles, and only found one that I thought should be AFD'd, but if there's another WP:BIO violation, let me know. THF 20:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nicholas Knatchbull

• Nicholas_Knatchbull (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Padraig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• One Night In Hackney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

A dispute over whether to use the term 'killed' or murdered' to describe someone who was killed by a personal convicted of murder. Padraig has reverted me twice, leaving no comment except the url of a village pump discussion-http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28policy%29&oldid=127533734#NPOV_-_Murder_vs_killing. I do not accept we have to apply what both users selectively draw from this messy discussion, which does not have a clear conclusion. I'm trying to just stick to the bare of the case. One Night in Hackney is extensively involved, see his and my talk page. He previously accepted my change from killed>murdered in the Thomas McMahon article, I do not understand therefore why the Knappbull article is any different. Deus Ex 17:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No conflict of interest here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hardly appropriate given your involved in the dispute. Please wait until a user not involved in this discussion handles it. Deus Ex 17:33, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You are, not "your". Perhaps you'd be so kind to say exactly which part of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest you think I'm breaking? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a fairly normal content dispute, not a conflict of interest (based on the information presented). Take it to RFC instead? SamBC(talk) 17:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Kaplan Institutes

User:Teammazur, who I think is likely to be a professional public relations agent, has been adding in the last two days numerous articles [23] for career institutes and other training centers of Kaplan Higher Education, and links into the relevant articles for the communities where they are located. Some of these are degree or diploma granting programs and may be notable, some of them are trade schools. Almost none of the articles provide more than directory information. I have been nominating some for deletion via speedy as advertising articles without possible encyclopedic content. DGG (talk) 20:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked this editor as a spam and probable role account. They were generating templated advertisement-style articles about schools with no assertion of notability at an incredible pace. Sandstein 20:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• World Health Organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Self-reported by THF 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
• See earlier discussion at WP:COI/N#Sicko, where consensus was reached that POV did not create COI.

Background. The WHO article failed to include the notable point of view that their health-rankings are biased against countries that have free-market mechanisms for delivering health services. I added a link to a John Stossel op-ed on the subject. An anonymous editor deleted, with the objection that Stossel did not qualify as WP:RS. To respond to that objection, I inserted a better source. An editor in a previous dispute with me has canvassed for objections on the grounds that the better source works for the same think tank as I do. He does not appear to contend that my edit violates NPOV; indeed, the same editor suggested that I add that missing POV to the WHO article.

Proposition #1. I do not have a COI when adding NPOV-compliant RS-compliant sources, just because those sources work for my thinktank, when those sources are writing independently of the work I do.

Proposition #2. The questioned edit complies with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Reasoning. My thinktank is an academic institution. It does not tell me, or any of its other fellows, what to think. I disagree with several of my colleagues: Sally Satel and I disagree with Leon Kass about bioethics issues; Fred Thompson, Michael Greve, and I have three different positions about the appropriate relationship between federalism and tort reform; Walter Berns and I disagree about the scope of the First Amendment; Norm Ornstein and I disagree about the Roberts Court's rulings; and I vocally disagree with the creationists when they rear their heads. We're our own individuals. I agree that there is a COI when it comes to sources that I write, and sources written by academics who write for the project that I direct at the think tank. But I know hundreds of academics, and it surely can't be the case that I am prohibited from mentioning any of them by virtue of that acquaintance--such a rule would effectively prohibit anyone with expertise from editing. I see nothing in COI that prohibits Harvard students or professors from inserting sources created by other Harvard professors. My thinktank is a nonprofit, and makes no money if someone happens to read something written by someone here--if anything, the bandwidth costs it money. There is no COI, and thus no COI violation.

Comments appreciated. I would like a consensus, so that I can continue to comply with COI and so that editors will cease making meritless COI allegations against me. THF 21:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - this is the wrong forum for you and your edits. You should go to ArbCom or to an RfC:User forum. So, I will not take part in this COI. --David Shankbone 21:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom has ruled on this precise issue before, involving a Lyndon LaRouche expert who edited articles about his own organization and about Lyndon LaRouche, and I don't see the need to trouble them about application in identical circumstances when an RFC like this one is available. THF 23:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Really, the issue is the totality of your edits, your behavior, and your agenda on Wikipedia. That is perhaps why you find yourself in arguments every single day, often with 2, 3, 4 or 5 editors at once. So, the COI is pointless - the problem isn't this one edit. The problem is, well, you. Just my two cents. --David Shankbone 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. Comment on edits, not editors. Let's see some diffs of edits on the WHO article that you find objectionable, and tell us why they are objectionable. It's not that hard: I've only made two edits, and they're both linked above, and you felt you needed to canvas for objections, so I'm seeking comment, just like you said you were doing.

I don't believe in the heckler's veto. The first three times my conduct was raised on COIN, the consensus was there was no wrongdoing. This is the fourth time. Four out of the first five times I raised an RFC on Sicko, the consensus was that my proposals were correct and the Moore partisans were inappropriately objecting. When I raised BLP objections on Regnery Publishing, admins agreed with me, if not the incorrect warning I gave the editor. I'm curious how many times your cries of wolf need to be rejected before you realize that I'm not the problem. Again, see relevant precedent. THF 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, you are the one who brought this COI, so your cries of wolf make no sense. They are in reference to a talk page question, so you can sit here in your COI and pout. My issue is with your behavior, the totality of your edits, and your constant warring with editors; with your disruptive editing. So as I've said before, I have no desire to participate. And sorry you see calling a spade a spade as a personal attack. But hey, if the shoe fits... Enjoy your COI. --David Shankbone 00:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So does anyone here think I have a COI on this particular edit, or can we agree that there is a consensus that my edits are compliant? THF 01:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think you have a coi that you're managing fairly well. However, it appears that a simple discussion on the talk page, as suggested by WP:COI, might have alleviated this problem. --Ronz 01:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that Shankbone also finds it objectionable when I engage in "simple discussion on a talk page": he has made two complaints to an admin just today that I am engaging in simple discussion on a talk page. THF 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not a problem for COI/N. However, it's not an excuse for you to do otherwise either. --Ronz 01:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. I don't have a COI. I made an edit. An editor makes a frivolous accusation of COI, and refuses to discuss with me, and has ignored previous RFCs. Admins won't intervene to stop the harassment. Where do I go? THF 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I have one thing to say on this, and I'm saying it directly and frankly both in line with my religious beliefs and out of sheer practicality. Will you two please go to arbcom or similar! I'm frankly fed up with seeing slightly different issues cropping up involving THF, usually with DavidShankBone opposite, and it's becoming a real drag; I'm sure that I'm not the only one who feels like this. I could state my personal view again, but it doesn't appear to do any good. Go to arbcom together to show willing, and just get it settled. Please. SamBC(talk) 01:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sam, I apologize for your understandable frustration, but this is far too premature for Arbcom. If you will assist me in an RFC/U, that will help escalate matters so that it might go to Arbcom if David refuses to relent in his harassment. In the alternative, an administrator might enforce the relevant harassment provision against "undue focus" on an editor just because he is a "controversial expert." THF 01:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Hey, I didn't bring this COI, I just asked User:Raul654 a question about two separate edits, and THF came here half-cocked. As you can see from THF's comments above, this isn't about COI for him, either, but about his continuing disruption to the projects because he's got a beef. He brings up so many issues here, none of which have anything to do with COI. In fact, Raul654 could have given exactly the same response Ronz did, and had he said "Yes, looks it to me" I still wouldn't be here. The question came, though, because THF vigorously defended putting in WHO criticism from John Stossel into the Sicko page; I told him to put it on the WHO page. Instead, he put his co-worker's criticism, which in one day was the second time he suggested putting AEI, his employer's stuff in. I had no problem with the criticism, I was just surprised he didn't choose his much-defended Stossel. I was curious - no more, no less. And I'd ask again. Beyond that, I have no wish to participate in this COI, and I second SamBC's thought. ArbCom or RfC would be fine with me. Considering how many fights THF has engaged in, I'm sure it would be a community-wide jamboree. --David Shankbone 02:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

• Railpage Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Doctorjbeam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I understand that Wikipedia guidelines protect the real names of users who have not disclosed it in their user name, but I suspect this user Doctorjbeamhas intentionally volunteered disclosure of his real name in Wikipedia by claiming to be the creator of two images that appear on Wikipedia(see “evidence to support claim”).

This allows me to raise this at the COI Noticeboard with regards to his involvement in the Railpage_Australia article. However, I have refrained from mentioning his actual name, just in case it is against guidelines, instead allowing the evidence to be presented in a form for an Administrator to make an assessment to the validity of my claims.

Evidence to support claim
Case 1 Posted by user claiming copyright ownership of the image,Doctorjbeam. Please note the name of the image author. This name seems to be also confirmed by mention of that name beneath a face in the top right hand corner of the first image used as evidence. The date of the creation of the image and its posting on Wikipedia are also the same.21 May.
Case 2 Posted by user claiming copyright ownership of the image, Doctorjbeam. Please note the name of the image author, and the comments the user has made about use of the image.

This same name matches one mentioned within the article [24](see bottom of article site development staff), being mentioned as being on the Railpage/Omni Interactive Pty Ltd team. This is again confirmed by the Railpage copyright page which is hyper linked from the Wikipedia article [25] see middle of copyright page "The visual theme of Railpage and all images associated..........".

This user has long been active in editing and discussion of the article since its conception since the creation of the article. [26],[27]and in my view would have a hard case to blame ignorance to WP:COI guidelines as he has made comments about COI. [28]

The user has also been active in making comments in WP:AFD about the Railpage article. [29], [30]

Any opinions about a possible COI?

If in agreement, I think a request for check user is appropriate against the following IP addresses. These IP addresses originate from Interactive Omnimedia Pty Ltd, the owner of the Railpage forum, and have been active in editing, discussion and voting in the Railpage article.
User:203.28.90.133 [31], edit history in the Railpage article.User:203.28.90.133
User:203.28.90.135 [32], edit history in the Railpage article.User:203.28.90.135
User:203.28.90.139 [33], edit history in the Railpage article. User:203.28.90.139
Tezza1 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. The article on Railpage Australia seems to be above the notability cutoff, and it is not terribly written. (I would shorten it about 20% if given a free hand). The article has existed for 15 months and attracted plenty of editors. Any remaining activity by editors with a conflict of interest (company employees and not just rail forum members) hardly looms large. User:Doctorjbeam, who may be an employee of a company connected to the site, has edited Railpage Australia a total of five times, and I didn't see him voting in any of the AFDs. (He added some rather boring information about the site servers). Thus the COI angle seems way overstated. I left a note for Doctorjbeam urging him to state his company affiliation on his user page. (This would avoid most forms of COI criticism). Tezza1 also posted a link to the issue at WP:AN#Railpage article so it is possible some relevant discussion may occur there. EdJohnston 01:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"This user has long been active in editing and discussion of the article". Pardon? I've been 'active' in editing for what, two, three months now? Even then (excluding one image that was reverted), my only edits to the Railpage article have been to cite sources that some people have flagged as needing citation, and to update out-of-date information.

"...and in my view would have a hard case to blame ignorance to WP:COI guidelines as he has made comments about COI". Read your source - I made one comment, and that was from a laymans perspective.

Of the three IP addresses you listed above, two are Digital River customers - the other is one of the PCs that Brian Evans uses. You'll find that I actually use a DHCP-addressed Telstra internet connection. I have never taken part in any polls on Wikipedia, and nor do I intend to.

Please point out exactly where I am guilty of COI, so I can avoid doing so in the future.

Why the Spanish Inquisition, Tezza? Doctorjbeam 06:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm the first to say that nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition. User:Doctorjbeam has now announced his affiliation with Railpage Australia on his user page as I had hoped earlier. EdJohnston 16:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have said it if I'd seen it sooner. Doctorjbeam, I can't see any COI but the best bit of advice (from WP:COI) for avoiding it is "Be guided by the advice of other editors." Thin Arthur 06:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone object to marking this issue as 'Resolved?' If you object, please indicate what further steps we should be taking before closing it. EdJohnston 17:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye Gay Meadow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) Non-notable book, and by looking at the book author (Matthew Ashton) and the user name User:Mattsnapper of the submitter it strikes me they may be one and the same. --Blowdart 09:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear cut. Hopefully the prod will go through and Mr. Ashton can look forward to the day his book becomes notable and someone else recreates an appropriate article. Deiz talk 09:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sicko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Self-reported by User:THF.

With an uncivil edit summary rv editor with a WP:COI who tries wikilaywering, User:Raphael1 reverted a legitimate edit that was consistent with Wikipedia policy because the editor, me, "has a COI." Except (1) I don't have a COI; and (2) even if I did have a COI, my edit was consistent with WP:SCOIC, since I discussed it on the talk page first several hours in advance. Raphael1 did not discuss the reversion on the talk-page.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he doesn't like Moore," or "THF has a conflict of interest because he is right-wing," then I ask that COI guidelines be applied consistently and that every editor on the page who likes Moore or is left-wing (such as Raphael1) be barred from editing the page, and the page be turned over to a set of people who have no opinions about Moore whatsoever. A look at the page's edit history (and at edits I have made) show that it's not the editors of the page who don't like Moore who are POV-pushing.

If the argument is "THF has a conflict of interest because he has written about Moore," then this is a misreading of the COI guideline. So long as I don't edit the mainspace article to include my writing on Moore, I am not violating COI guidelines. Any other interpretation of the COI policy would demand that people with expertise in the subject cannot edit Wikipedia simply because they have published. Perhaps that's the rule Wikipedia wants, but then it should be enforced evenly, and all of the other academics should be kicked off the project also.

If the argument is "THF's former employer was hired in 2004 by a pharmaceutical company all because the pharmaceutical company hoped that, three years later, THF, when he worked for a completely different employer, would make Wikipedia-policy-compliant edits to an article about a movie about health care, all because he performed some legal work on a completely different unrelated subject for the pharmaceutical company," I suggest that that is a self-refuting argument, and that anyone who makes it got it from an attack site that demonstrates their own COI under even application of the policy.

Can I get some guidance here? It's surely not the case that the subject of the article gets to dictate which Wikipedia editors gets to edit the article about his movie by attacking the editors he disagrees with. THF 12:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (minor tweak 13:19, 25 August 2007 (UTC))

I see no issue with THF's edit. There do appear to be OR or SYN problems there: if Cuba's ranking was never mentioned in the movie, then trying to explain Moore's point would be an extrapolation, i.e. original research. I haven't looked at THF's other edits, but this one looks fine. ATren 13:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If anything, this is a content dispute, not COI. The way to deal with that is to discuss the problem on the article talk page first, and if that fails, visit Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. THF, I encourage you not to edit war. Revert once at most, then call for help. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I followed the strategy you advise before you advised it, even being more cautious than you advise me to me. I raised the issue on the talk page; when there was no objection, I made the edit; I was reverted; I asked for help here on COI/N; I got the help, which confirmed that I was not in the wrong; I reverted once; nevertheless, User:Ripe, who has consistently POV-pushed, reverted again without discussing on the talk page; I raised the issue on the talk page again and brought an RFC and have not edit-warred. Perhaps someone could ask User:Ripe not to edit-war and to discuss on the talk-page? I'd also appreciate any help on the RFC I raised at the talk page. It's hard to come to a consensus when no one will discuss the issue. THF 16:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

While not COI, there is a strong probability of POV pushing between yourself and Michael Moore. I advise you to step away from this completely so as not to give your critics more ammunition, and to avoid turning Wikipedia into a battle ground. If your adversaries POV push, we'll take care of them. You're better off not engaging them yourself. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence of POV pushing on this article, but then I haven't looked very har either. Certainly THF is in opposition to Michael Moore, but for him to be POV pushing he would have to be making unverifiable changes to the article, right? I see a lot of people raising a ruckus about THF editing the article, but I've yet to see a single diff that indicates abuse by THF. (disclaimer: this is not to say such evidence doesn't exist - only that I haven't seen it - and I wish the people making the accusations would provide the diffs that triggered them to do so) ATren 19:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting who is POV pushing, but when edit wars erupt, it's very likely that at least one side is POV pushing. Whoever backs away wins, in my view. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I've asked for help in editing the page so that the page can be brought into compliance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and so that I will not edit-war, even though edits that every editor on this page agree are legitimate have been reverted twice without any talk-page discussion by the people who reverted them, even though I initiated talk-page discussion before I made the edit. THF 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, without evidence of noncompliant edits on my part, I strongly ask you to reconsider your advice that I stop editing the article. If you start editing an article about me, can I force you to stop editing the article by creating an off-wiki page attacking you? If we wouldn't allow Michael Moore to POV-push by reverting every edit I make, why should we allow him to effectively bar me from editing his article, so long as I comply with Wikipedia policies in doing so? THF 20:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that you work for an organization who's mission may include influencing public opinion against Michael Moore, I am striking my comment that there's no COI here. THF, please understand that Wikipedia is not a battleground for partisan politics. If you see a problem with Sicko please comment on the talk page and the community will deal with the problem. The quantity and tone of your edits and comments leads me to believe that you are attempting to change the spin of this article. If your arguments are valid, placing them on the talk page may produce the results you seek, without all this drama.

Neither Michael Moore, nor his employees are editing these articles as far as I can tell. If you have evidence to the contradict that, please do share it with us. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

But you have no way of knowing that. The fact is: anonymous editors could be anyone. I could be Michael Moore. (No, I'm not. :-)) So the fact that THF is known as a conservative critical of Moore should have no bearing on the COI question unless there is specific evidence of abuse. In fact, by virtue of his own disclosures, I tend to trust THF more than an anonymous editor - if he truly wanted to push POV, wouldn't he register here anonymously?

Wikipedia is built on the concept of anonymous editors, which means we must give all editors the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence otherwise - and by evidence, I mean abusive edits. We should not condemn THF for revealing his biases, we should commend him for his honesty and his willingness to open himself up to this kind of critical examination of his edits here. ATren 21:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all fine and well, but I don't think it's a good idea for the employee of a conservative think tank to edit an article about that think tank's arch-nemesis. I doubt there's anyone they dislike more than Michael Moore. WP:COI counsels not to edit articles about competitors. If I find somebody from the RNC editing an article about the DNC, that's a problem. Likewise, if an agent of the RNC edits an article about an agent of the DNC, that's also a problem. We're starting to get very close to what's actually going on here. If you want diffs and evidence, that's like pushing snowball down the hill. You don't know how big it will get or how far it will go. The question is, will people back off, or will they challenge the community to stop them? - Jehochman ^Talk 21:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this argument elsewhere, and I disagree with it on the grounds that the head of the RNC may already be editing anonymously on the DNC article, and we would never know it if their edits were good. We should extend the same courtesy to non-anonymous editors, and perhaps we should even extend more leeway to such users, since they are already subjected to much more stringent oversight by virtue of their self-admitted POV. Wikipedia should not be punishing editors solely for revealing their associations. ATren 22:56, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

the "appearance" of COI?!?

(unindent) For the record, I appreciate THF's contributions to Wikipedia and respect him for identifying his connections. While this may not be a case of actual COI, I hope that THF will try to avoid controversial editing about subjects where he has taken a strong public position off wiki, in order to avoid the appearance of COI. I also hope that those who disagree with THF won't play the COI card every time he does something they don't like. Play nice. That's my two cents. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, the COI guideline does not extend to the appearance of COI where there is no actual COI under the COI guideline and doing so makes no sense. There isn't a single article on Wikipedia where somebody couldn't make up an attenuated story why I have an "appearance" of COI (just like Moore did about Sicko), and simply by making the accusation, poof, there it is, an "appearance of COI." That's a way to encourage abuse of editors, rather than discourage it, and contrary to the COI policy. I fail to see why my employer is relevant. They don't tell me what to think, and vice versa: I disagree with several of my colleagues, and I'm confident I can find colleagues who disagree with me. If you want people to seek out advice on COI compliance by coming to the COI/N, then you need to have a rule of thumb better than "It's better to ask forgiveness than permission, because granting permission is too hard, so we're just going to never going to grant permission and bar everything under the 'appearance' of a conflict of interest, though no such guideline exists in WP:COI." Here, I am the editor complying with NPOV, and the editors who I am in a content dispute with (who have their own unacknowledged and undisclosed prejudices as largely anonymous editors) are POV-pushing and making bad-faith accusations: and your proposed solution effectively rewards the bad-faith accusations by calling my legitimate edits "controversial," though the controversy is entirely manufactured. Do you really want to let every political candidate know that the way to POV-push is to publicly attack the editors seeking NPOV edits and accuse them of a conflict of interest? Because that is the strategy Moore is using here. THF 04:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no COI here. COI is specific in what is covered. 'Sicko' (or for that matter Michael Moore) is not litigant in any of the cases THF is involved in. THF's company or employer, as far as we know, has no financial stake in 'Sicko'. This seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The editor claiming COI is trying to stretch a POV content dispute into a policy violation. It is no different than reverting an edit by calling it vandalism. All editors have their biases and pov but that does not make it a COI. --Tbeatty 07:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

We shouldn't be naive here. Ted F. is fellow of a public policy research institute, researching the liability of pharmaceutical products and medical malpractice. They certainly have a financial stake in 'Sicko'. --Raphael1 10:34, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How does a non-profit thinktank with independent scholars with independent opinions have a "financial stake" in the #22 documentary? By that definition you have a COI because you have financial stake in Sicko because you pay for health insurance. THF 12:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Independent? You must be kidding. The American Enterprise Institute [34][35] is multi-million dollar funded by the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation [36][37] and the Smith Richardson Foundation [38], who certainly get what they pay for. --Raphael1 15:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I never heard of the Smith Richardson Foundation is until you mentioned them, and neither Foundation has ever told me what to say or think, and the donations you mention are a miniscule percentage of AEI's budget over the time the money was given. These foundations have also given money to universities. Are we going to ban every faculty member and graduate of those universities? What about recipients of Ford Foundation money? Of George Soros money? Moreover, since my employer does not pay me to edit Wikipedia, who gives them money is utterly irrelevant.

I also note the uncivil accusation of academic dishonesty ("get what they pay for"), which has no basis in fact, but I suppose it's too much to ask that WP:CIVIL be adhered to. THF 15:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at the Smith Richardson Foundation article, I see that they also fund the liberal Brookings and Urban thinktanks. Raphael1's position, which was extraordinarily attenuated before, is shown to be entirely irrational. THF 22:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't you think it's rather silly to remind me of WP:CIVIL, but at the same time calling me lift-wing and irrational? Here's what your collegue from the American Enterprise Institute, Patricia M. Danzon, writes about the health care system: [39]--Raphael1 02:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Patricia Danzon works at the Wharton School, and is not my colleague, though she does fine work. And even if she did work for my employer, I'm not Patricia Danzon. She wouldn't tell me what to think, and vice versa. I've publicly disagreed with a number of my colleagues on a number of issues. It's a thinktank, not a military organization. THF 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, there is a distinction between POV and COI. Any editor has POV, some quite strong, and most do not reveal it (as THF has). But having a POV does not automatically disqualify an editor from editing articles related to that POV. There needs to be some evidence that the editor is pushing an article to a POV state before the question of COI arises. The evidence I've seen (very little) against THF does not seem to indicate POV pushing, even if they do reflect his ideology - e.g. questioning whether a claim in the Sicko article is original research is a valid and positive contribution even if it does happen to support his POV. I've asked repeatedly for evidence of unconstructive edits from THF, and I've seen none. All I've seen is allegations that he should not be questioning the article at all because of his self-admitted POV. Furthermore, there is no evidence that he profits financially or otherwise from his activities here, so even if there were POV pushing, the question of COI would not be open-and-shut. And I keep returning to this question: if you didn't know this editor's true identity, would his edits be controversial? I don't think so (not the ones I've seen) so let's remember to attack the edits, not the editor. ATren 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The removal of valid content by THF, which I reverted is enough evidence for his POV pushing. He obviously wants to cencor facts about the poor US health care system.--Raphael1 18:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

But was that indeed valid content? There is a discussion on the talk page in which THF claims that the text in the article was never presented that way in the movie. And he supports his claim with a source (NPR). If it is not in the movie as stated there, then it would seem to be OR. How is it POV pushing when there are reliable sources that contradict the wording that THF reverted? Sanjay Gupta of CNN also had concerns about this claim as stated in the movie. It's not a controversial revert, IMO. Debatable, perhaps; controversial, no. ATren 18:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

NPR language: "One thing did bother me with presenting Cuba as a paragon of health care, while showing the 9/11 workers who couldn't get care in this country: Moore didn't point out that, on that famous chart where the U.S. comes out 37th in health care, Cuba comes out 39th." THF 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Which is simply wrong as you can easily see from this movie still:[40]--Raphael1 02:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

A frame-grab is not "pointing it out," so the NPR commentator is correct, and this is not the place to discuss a content dispute. THF 03:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The NPR source doesn't support his claim at all. Indeed it doesn't even mention the $7000 vs. $251 comparison. Sanjay Gupta of CNN only presented his IMHO minor issue, that comparing the data of the same year, it would be $6000 vs. $251, which doesn't change the core fact, that >$5000 difference are worth only 2 ranks on the WHO ranking list.--Raphael1 01:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1's statement demonstrates exactly why I was correct to call the edit a violation of WP:NOR and WP:SYN. But this isn't the place to discuss the content dispute. It doesn't matter whether the edit is correct (though I think it was): the critical point is that the edit was not inconsistent with good faith. Raphael1's statements on this thread demonstrate that his POV is at least as strong as mine (perhaps even stronger, as his POV has led him to make irrational statements such as the claim that Smith Richardson Foundation funding of an employer creates COI), but has not given any argument for why I have a COI qualitatively different than his COI. That he continues to push this without legitimate reference to the COI guideline is tendentious. THF 02:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The Smith Richardson Foundation, which is financed by Vick Chemical (today Procter & Gamble), is not only funding the AEI, but your boss Christopher DeMuth is governor of the Smith Richardson Foundation. You like your job, don't you?--Raphael1 02:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, where is the COI? THF 03:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that obvious, when you are on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies like Merck?--Raphael1 03:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not on the payroll of any pharmaceutical companies, and never have been. More inaccuracies. Again, where is the COI? THF 03:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, the only case I have been involved in in the last two years is Abigail Alliance v. von Eschenbach, where I filed a pro bono brief on behalf of a number of economists. THF 13:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

convenience break 826

I tend to agree with THF's (on-wiki) position here, however strongly I may disagree with his off-wiki one. :) Conflict of interest means one has a financial or other concrete interest in how an article here is presented; for example, an article on a company you own or work for, or a website you operate. It doesn't just mean you have any interest. Let's face it, most of us edit in areas we have an interest in. I don't really care about Russian fauna, so I don't look to edit articles on that topic. And that interest inevitably comes with some type of personal viewpoint. Now, if THF (or anyone) is POV-pushing (and I don't know if he is or not, I'd have to look a lot more closely), that's unacceptable behavior, and must be stopped. On the other hand, if he's taking care to source his additions and not give undue weight to viewpoints which happen to coincide with his own, he's fine. But neither one is a conflict of interest. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to look too hard. Editors are trying to remove THF as a contributor because of their POV. And that's unacceptable behavior. --Tbeatty 19:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

THF has stated he does not contribute information to the article nor prevent information from entering the article. He only removes vandalism. If this is the case, your statement does not make sense. Why would people want to remove an editor who is only removing vandalism? I think attempting to call people liars regarding their claims is a WP:AGF violation. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This statement is trolling, as I never said any such thing, so please remove it yourself. THF 12:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC) (modified per WP:COOL, 13:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC))

You do add content? For or against the movie? Sorry this was actually suppose to be supportive of you. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that he does works on content issues, but I've not seen any evidence of abuse in those edits. If he were an anonymous editor, this COI thread would not exist and this debate would be happening at RfC where it belongs. IMO, Ted Frank is exactly the kind of editor we want here: an intellectual who has openly admitted his identity/POV, who contributes in good faith, and who understands and follows policy. The fact that such an editor actually has a POV which runs counter to many editors here is a plus in this case, because (as long as he is working productively, which he seems to be doing) he will be able to counter any unsupportable pro-Moore POV in the articles, while his admitted POV keeps others on full alert. This kind of contribution can only improve the encyclopedia, and we should resist the temptation to turn this content dispute into a COI issue. ATren 13:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

To sum up

Let's recap. Raphael1, who has demonstrated that he has an extraordinarily strong point of view far stronger than mine and less fettered by facts, has changed his story of a COI accusation three times, and has been wildly inaccurate or illogical each time. This is getting tendentious, and I would like an administrator or other editor to intervene and tell him he is wrong, and to cease misusing COI allegations to POV-push. It's a plain violation of WP:NPA, and starting to rise to the level of pestering. THF 04:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I've never changed my story, as I've pointed out right from the start, that working for a right-wing think-tank close to the Bush administration[41] and spinning public opinion in behalf of pharmaceutical companies, as you did numerous times on PointofLaw.com (free of charge? I don't think so.) does indeed constitute a WP:COI, when you edit on Sicko. I can understand, that this must feel pestering to you, but I think it's in the interest of WP to point that out. --Raphael1 11:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You've demonstrated a POV, not a COI. I don't get paid by pharmaceutical companies. Many people honestly believe that the current state of pharmaceutical product liability (which is an entirely separate issue from the issue of socialized medicine) is a mess, and I'm one of them. Even if I did get paid by pharmaceutical companies, so what? Are people with medical training barred from writing on the article if they receive money from Medicare? THF 12:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Medical training and working for an institute paid by pharma corps to spin cases and win litigation are different issues entirely. You are creating a hyperbolic statement. --SevenOfDiamonds 12:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of sanctionable pestering. Do I really have to repeat myself against inaccurate claims that I address on this very same page? Can someone please intervene? THF 12:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Intervene? You are being dramatic. I am explaining what the issue people have is. Everyone gets you have a different opinion on how things look. Other do not see it that way. Do as you please in the end, people who feel you have a COI will revert your changes most likely, and you will continue to make them and drama will continue to stir. I am starting to think it is what people live for here. Of all the articles you are being asked to avoid one and instead we have paragraphs on AN/I and here because of it. There are too many dramatists on this encyclopedia. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, sir. Wikipedia has a COI guideline, and your personal opinion about an editor who is not in violation of the guideline does not permit you to target the legitimate edits of the editor under the auspices of the COI guideline. See WP:STALK, WP:NPA, and WP:HARASS. You reoeat a false accusation about me that was explicitly addressed in this thread, and there is no good-faith basis for doing so. So I'm asking admins to intervene. Michael Moore doesn't get to veto who edits his articles any more than I do. THF 13:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

This is all getting pretty silly, but it's not THF who's being silly IMO. I share most of Michael Moore's political views, ass far as I know. I believe in socialised healthcare. I think that THF's political views and agenda (what I know of them) are, frankly, disgusting. That doesn't make him disgusting, and I'm far from convinced that he's pushed this agenda in violation of NPOV. In the article in question, Sicko, my review of the recent history looks more like my fellow left-wingers silencing criticism than others trying to give criticism undue weight. I'm frankly surprised that THF has remained as civil as he has in the face of all this. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true. SamBC(talk) 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Dice

• Mark Dice (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Conner 2
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Resistance Manifesto
• Deb4ser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• MagicMemory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 208.54.15.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 208.54.15.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) +
• 72.192.187.241 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) +
• 72.89.204.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) +

This is a soapbox matter rather a straight COI but COIN is probably the best noticeboard for it. "John Conner" is a pseudonym used by Mark Dice until recently. His internet radio show and writings appear similar to Alex Jones (radio). Under either name he is known for self-promotion. For the past couple of years promotional edits favoring him have been made to Wikipedia. In the past he's been sufficiently non-notable that most of the references have been removed. The "John Conner" article was successfully AFDed twice, and speedily deleted a couple of more times too. Obviously it's been recreated several times. The various promotional efforts have paind off and he's probably notable enough now to merit at least a short article. If so, we need to watch it closely to prevent it from becoming a soapbox for fringe theories. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This is another one that needs to be looked at more carefully not onyl for COI, but notability. He's merely famous for stalking and for being in the news, not being or doing anything per se. I've tagged it, too. Bearian 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

208.54.15.129 is still actively COI-editing the article, adding links for videos the subject has made as (wholly not-RS) references, for example. I have referenced some of his additions, but I wouldn't waste energy on arguing against their deletion, and I'm frankly tempted to stubbify the article. As Will Beback pointed out, there's a soapbox issue here, too. — Athaenara ✉ 08:02, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

72.192.187.241 is the most recent of this ilk. — Athaenara ✉ 21:13, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

72.89.204.101 blanked the page three times so far. — Athaenara ✉ 04:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Thanks to Athaenara's cleanup work, the Mark Dice article is in good shape now. Can we close this COI report? The last major promoter, 72.192.187.241 (talk · contribs), has not edited since 16 August when Athaenara gave him a COI warning. The other IP, 72.89.204.101 (talk · contribs) looks more like a vandal. Except for those two, there have been no COI edits lately. Since the recent bad edits (since 1 August) have not been frequent enough to justify blocking or semi-protection, I don't think there is anything still to do besides keep the article on our watch lists. EdJohnston 16:16, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Bernard J. Taylor

• Bernard J. Taylor (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Terrell Newman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Siebahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Article on playwright created by a person claiming to be the webmaster for his promotional website who is also adding promotional information about the playwright to other articles and has started an article about at least one fictional character in playwright's plays. WP:OWN issues are arising -- user is removing appropriate templates. Erechtheus 03:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here's the COI admission. I've left a warning. Block indefinitely on the next COI or spam edit. Somebody needs to go clean up this big mess. This user has been a prolific spammer. Jehochman ^Talk 04:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

User maintains webpage:

• bernardjtaylor.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Can we please indef block this abusive editor?

Grab your mop. Every edit from this account is self-serving COI or linkspam, hitting multiple articles. (e.g. [42][43][44]) Wikipedia is being abused for a publicity campaign. The editor has been warned up, but persists, and has been leaving obnoxious messages with any editor who opposes. Jehochman ^Talk 14:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

48 hour block for WP:NPA violations. Follow up with specific evidence of linkspam, etc. if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 17:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

The most vitriolic personal attack is this one.

Whether or not problems resume, here are the external links that need to be checked. Many look like spam. The editor claims to be the webmaster of this site, so he obviously should not be adding all these links:

1. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
2. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com linked from User:Siebahn - This one is OK
3. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/ linked from Bernard J. Taylor - Also OK
4. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/BOOKINDEX.html linked from Image:Bernard J. Taylor.jpg -OK
5. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Books.html linked from Detective fiction - SPAM
6. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/Heights.html linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
7. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/Heights.html linked from Lesley Garrett - SPAM
8. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Heights/htsbronte.html linked from Wuthering Heights - SPAM
9. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Htspages/Heights.html linked from Wikipedia:Dead external links/404/w - No issue
10. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Liberty/Liberty.html linked from List of musicals: A to L - SPAM
11. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Liberty/Liberty.html linked from Battle of the Alamo - SPAM
12. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Muchado/Mado.html linked from Much Ado About Nothing - SPAM
13. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/Nosferatu/nosmoore.html linked from Much Ado About Nothing - SPAM
14. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/PridePrejudice/pp.html linked from Pride and Prejudice - SPAM
15. http://www.bernardjtaylor.com/PridePrejudice/ppintro.html linked from Pride and Prejudice - SPAM

I hope the editor will agree to stop spamming, clean up the above mess, refrain from further COI edits, and agree not to make further insults. Jehochman ^Talk 18:16, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave this at a 48 hour block for now. If problems resume the duration will escalate rapidly. Durova^Charge! 18:26, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the linkspam listed above. Jehochman ^Talk 19:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 69.218.220.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for blockevation. Agathoclea 22:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Block on the sockmaster extended to one week. Report additional problems here and I'll respond appropriately. Durova^Charge! 16:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I wonder even about the notability. I don't know about the US venues, but the UK ones - Tonbridge ... Eastbourne ... Rotherham - have a rather small-town flavour, and these productions may even be amdram. And his books track to iUniverse (ie self-published). AFD? Gordonofcartoon 02:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Judging by SP edits, two more likely socks, the latter getting uppity about being expected to provide published sources for biographical data: Gordonofcartoon 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
24.93.115.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
Artwinters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Update: just noticed more advertising at Nosferatu The Vampire (musical), Pride and Prejudice (musical), and Much Ado (musical). Gordonofcartoon 02:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Westgate / advertising

• JRoss09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Special:Linksearch/*.westgateresorts.com
• Westgate Resorts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• David A. Siegel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I was told this might be the right place to ask. Westgate Resorts looks like a huge advertisement to me. Am I right? It may be a notable company, but I don't think all of those resort links need to be there. --blm07 15:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks like a public relations campaign to me. Editor JRoss09 has only edited articles about Westgate Resorts, its founder, shareholders, affiliates, and places where he can add links. I'll warn him about COI editing, and see what he has to say. Jehochman ^Talk 17:57, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to fix the main article for formatting and erasing junk from it. Bearian 01:52, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some more cleanup, but it still needs work. Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

NBC Universal IP address inserting program ads

• 64.210.199.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Stephenb214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• John_Travolta (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Michael_Eisner (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Becky_Quick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• (various other NBC employee BLP's)

IP whois shows this user(s) is at NBC Universal itself. Editing includes (in addition to a "Fxxx Y**" edit) a history of "this xNBC show coming on at date/time" adverts in Travolta, Eisner and NBC employee BLP articles. I'd suggest that an IT administrator that presides over that IP range at NBC be contacted by wikipedia that wikipedia should not be used to spam upcoming NBC shows and to post in a manner that I'm sure NBC would not want to be associated with. Piperdown 19:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added another possible NBC SPA-COI account (Stephenb214) to the list. Jehochman ^Talk 22:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected Michael Eisner and Becky Quick for two weeks. The account and IP address don't show any recent activity. If this is an ongoing problem, please post the relevant account or IP. I take this very seriously and I agree: this is the type of situation where it's important to act quickly and with discretion. I don't know whether this is good faith action by a new user, whether it's coming on orders from management or some well-meaning low level employee acting alone, but it's the kind of thing that could really cause negative press backlash for a firm. Durova^Charge! 15:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Still spamming: [45]. The Evil Spartan 14:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I'd expect this coming from a small, non notable business, but NBC?!?! James Luftan ^contribs 02:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

NBC Universal (again)

Brought this up before [46], and it's happening again. NBC Universal IP address editing the BLP's of an NBC employee [47]. Piperdown 17:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Theatre Under The Stars (Houston)

• Theatre Under The Stars (Houston) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Veronabritj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - (formerly User:Theatre under the stars)

Created by, and extensively edited by, a new editor with the exact same name. I tagged it for COI2. Bearian 23:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[[WP:PROD|Proposed for deletion]. YechielMan 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Edits were reverted 3 times or more in a matter of days, and the page was blanked once, by the same user. Does this violate the rule on 3r's? Bearian 16:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

MFauntroy (talk · contribs)

• MFauntroy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Michael K. Fauntroy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - autobiography
• Walter E. Fauntroy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - uncles's biography

Wrote his own biography and significantly contributed to father's biography, as well as self-promotional editing in other articles. Videmus Omnia 03:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also removing negative information concerning his uncle. Videmus Omnia 03:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I've warned the user. If he continues making COI edits, please let us know. Jehochman ^Talk 04:23, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• 69.146.65.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) removed {{COI2}} from WEF article. I added maintenance / improvement tags when I restored it. — Athaenara ✉ 06:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Katrina Swett

• Katrina Swett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• SwettforSenate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Has been editing that article, with an obvious POV username. I didn't know whether to place a request here or at WP:UAA. Flamgirlant 18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Username-blocked. Videmus Omnia 19:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• 24.62.159.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - suspected mockpuppet, COncord, New Hampshire IP.
• Donatello08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - User's only contribs are to the article and its talk page.
• Lyracat1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - another possible spa.

I've left a warning for the user. Please report this as an inappropriate username. Thanks. Jehochman ^Talk 18:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the swift response. I'll be down the hall, to the left. =).--Flamgirlant 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

broken <s> tag fixed.--Flamgirlant 19:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added content and citations I found with a Google search. Bearian 23:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Branding brand

→ See also: Special:Linksearch/*.collegeprowler.com

• Branding brand (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Collegeprowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Hotsaucetogo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - another possible SPA.

I have tagged the article for: conflict of interest, reads like an advertisement (peacock language, photos and interests of the principals, etc.), red links, lacking third-party sources, and unverified sources. This is an article for PR firm by a PR firm. WP:NOT, WP:OR

The conflict is that the former employer of three principals and the creating editor have a suspiciously similar name. The creator of the article has most recently only been creating or editing articles about persons or entities that are clients and principals of that PR firm. Also, the editor has made lots of edits, but has not even bothered to make a user page or a user talk page. WP:COI

I have not suggested to delete it entirely, as it may be notable, or just my error.

Also, there's possible copy-vio of pictures? Bearian 16:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah!

• Joey Rahimi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• College Prowler (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• United Nations International School (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Joey Rahimi = Collegeprowler = College Prowler = Branding brand = Branding Brand = Alumni of United Nations International School [[48]]!

From Joey Rahimi: "Joey Rahimi (born April 20, 1979) is an American entrepreneur and co-founder of College Prowler, a Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania-based publishing company of college guidebooks and collegeprowler.com, one of the fastest growing websites in its industry. The company was established in 2002 as a project in an entrepreneurship class at CMU's Tepper School of Business.[1] He attended the United Nations International School and graduated with an International Baccalaureate. Upon being accepted into Washington University in St. Louis, Emory University, New York University, and Carnegie Mellon University, Joey decided to attend Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. [2]"

Also, note the Usertalk on Collegeprowler has several copyright violation notices! Bearian 16:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Images have been tagged as no source/license. Videmus Omnia 19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The portraits in the article are copyvio from company website here. Videmus Omnia 19:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Collegeprowler (talk · contribs) is now removing maintenance notice from Joey Rahimi and College Prowler. Videmus Omnia 15:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I unclosed this as there are three more articles that the concerned user has been editing where COI is applicable. MER-C 02:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Edits to Joey Rahimi by Hotsaucetogo (talk · contribs) continue, including removal of COI and maintenance tags. Videmus Omnia 01:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Freedompress (talk · contribs)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Green Patriot (AfD closed with Redirect to David Steinman on 24 April 2007).

• Freedompress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) Now indef blocked as a role account
• David Steinman (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Freedom Press (U.S.) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

See the above user's user page for self-proclaimed COI. Videmus Omnia 20:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah. This might be grounds for deletion, but I'm not sure. YechielMan 10:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment. Looks to me that David Steinman is notable. I removed a bunch of advertising language, and took off the 'advertisement' tag, leaving just the COI tag. I suggest that the content of the article on Freedom Press (U.S.) could be merged into David Steinman. For some reason, articles that small publishers submit about themselves are usually dreadful and don't talk about anything notable. The references should be put into citation templates. In their copious spare time, other editors could search for some reviews of his books to help develop third-party sourcing. If this were done, the 'COI' tag might be removed. EdJohnston 01:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Freedompress (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked on 13 July as a role account, and there is no indication that the editor has noticed, or has tried to create a new account. I sent him some Wikipedia email so he is at least aware of this discussion. EdJohnston 02:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the article Freedom Press (U.S.) with a redirect to David Steinman. The history is still visible under the redirect. EdJohnston 03:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be happy to add additional references for David Steinman. I have created a new account but I'm not sure how to relate it to my former username, freedompress. I don't fully understand why Freedom Press (U.S.) was removed when there is an article about the publishing company Freedom Press in the U.K. Thank you for your help.NY12345 19:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Douglas Hubbard

• Military logistics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Hubbardaie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• BillGosset (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I'm looking for unbiased opinions on recent edits of Military logistics by Hubbardaie. Although sourced, his edits focus on his own Applied Information Economics model, work he has done for the Navy all referenced to his recently published book. In my opinion this borders on self promotion and assigns undue weight to a single aspect of a subject. Ehrentitle 21:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In retrospect, I can see excluding my point for an article that short. I could see it as a subsection or a separate article. The military logistics article should be much longer. I compared it to the length of the artillery page and infantry page. I think it should be at least as long as those.Hubbardaie 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

• Douglas Hubbard (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 16 June 2007 (UTC)
• Applied Information Economics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 6 June 2007 (UTC)
• Hubbard Family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 13 May 2007 (UTC)
• Hubbard family (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Coi Spa Hubbardaie ("aie" presumably for "applied information economics") has created at least four additional articles, listed above. — Athaenara ✉ 04:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Watch your name-calling. Perhaps I'm automatically COI for no other reason than my publications but the SPA label is out of line. I've edited lots of articles for a long time with absolutely no reference to me. Stop the labels or I'll just refer to you as Racist Athaenara or Child Molester Athaenara (you can pick).—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hubbardaie (talk • contribs) 13:13, 30 June 2007.

by the way, one of the "Hubbard family" articles is redundant. I'm not sure how that happened. One simply has "family" capitalized in the title and the other does not.Hubbardaie 18:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

It appears someone just redirected the duplicateHubbardaie 19:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're not a SPA, it should be no trouble to point to say a dozen edits from the last month that are not about "Applied Information Economics", or "Hubbard", or disputes and discussions relating to same. Looking over your contributions log, I have trouble identifying those. Could you please provide such links? Facts are a better defense than name-calling. –Henning Makholm 15:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

In defense of HubbardAIE, he didn't say "dozens". He said "lots", whatever that means. Again, facts first.BillGosset 17:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Correct, I did not say "dozen", Henning Makholm pulled that rule out of thin air. Care is always needed about the facts. In fact, I found in short order three edits I made that had absolutely no reference to me: Anti-globalization, Nobel prize in Economics, and Vulcanization. I believe one would suffice to refute the "single" purpose position. Technically, I would need a dozen if I were accused of being a "sub-duodecad purpose". But, fortunately, I was only accused of being single purpose, so three is more than enough.Hubbardaie 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed he didn't actually create the article reference for his name but he did fill in some bio information after someone else created it. The sources on these other articles are mostly other information, not his book. We used this guy's methods in my firm a few years ago and he would know best. I've also edited some of these articles and added a couple of references. Other than listing himself as a "prominent Hubbard", the sources on the "Hubbard Family" article appear to be independent geneological resources.BillGosset 18:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? It sure looks like he created the article himself. OR did you mean this or this? –Henning Makholm 16:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I only created the article because someone else made it a link on the AIE article which I did write but linked to nowhere. Feel free to remove it or nominate it for deletion. Seriously, I don't care. I kept it short and factual because I figured someone would protest. You will notice that the hubbard family article uses two independent references.Hubbardaie 17:47, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

This brings up another topic I've wondered about. I've published quite a few articles around financial portfolio management and statistical models. I haven't referenced all of my own articles in Wikipedia yet but if there is a rule against that, then that would seem to elliminate some of the most qualified people from writing on most topics (people who are published in that area). Is it frowned upon to reference one's own work? Even if it is supported by the work of others? In other AFD discussions I've seen, COI was itself not sufficient reason for deletion but a lack of supporting references can be.Hubbardaie 19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would minimize further changes by yourself on any of these articles unless it is a purely minor change like fixing a link. The military logistics page includes only one brief comment about AIE and you provide one source. I added in the military logistics discussion that it should stay in but it would be a smaller part if the article grows (and it should). The other articles seem to have several other sources besides your own. And it's not like you are just referencing a business website for marketing since the work you cite has been published in respected sources. Still, its a fine line to walk. I would resist the temptation to make further changes yourself.BillGosset 19:16, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I smell socks. BillGosset, are you sure that you're not Hubbardaie? For example, your only edit to Talk:Measurement is to sign a comment left by Hubbardaie three minutes earlier – which spoke of Hubbardaie in the third person, agreeing with him(self). –Henning Makholm 16:38, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we have used the same computer, but we are two different people. Bill has visited and he previously revealed in the Military Logistics talk that I did work for his firm - you can verify those comments. He must have wrote the comment you refer to before I signed off and then corrected it later. We talk about wikipedia a lot. I've explicitly used the "HubbardAIE" username to be as forthcoming as possible when I write articles. Actually, I'm suspicious of most of you regarding your agendas and sock-puppet status. I didn't even have to admit that much. Most of you don't.Hubbardaie 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically, I'm more like a "meat puppet", but I don't like the sexual connotations. He's ok but I'm really not attracted to him that way:-) Seriously, we only use the same computer when we are both in the same office. We should talk more about our arguments so the wiki-cops aren't so suspicious.BillGosset 18:43, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, comments from an admin:

1. It is generally inappropriate to write about yourself, especially a bio about yourself. I will be userfying it in a moment. For more information about this, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography. It is okay to occasionally cite one of your own works, see Wikipedia:No original research#Citing oneself, but it really needs to be kept to a minimum.
2. We don't need duplicate articles, so I've redirected Hubbard Family to Hubbard family.
3. It is acceptable for you to write about areas inwhich you are an expert. In fact, it's encouraged. But it is also recognized that if you're an expert, you will be knowledgeable about other references, particularly secondary sources, and it is preferred that you use those rather than referenceing your own works on a large scale.
4. User:BillGosset: I've dropped a welcome template on your page...I would suggest that in order to avoid the appearance of wrong doing, you carefully consider what and where you edit. There's absolutely nothing wrong with collaboration, but even "meat puppets" (in the non-sexual sense) are discouraged.
5. Be careful about civility...the responses above very quickly got a bit heated. If you really are an academic/professional, you will understand the need to act professionally, especially here.

I am always available to answer questions. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:08, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree on all points. Here are my individual responses:

1. I just made a note in your talk page (before I read your points here) that I was always ok with deleting my autobiography - which I honestly would not have written except that someone else made my name an article link (I felt obligated to fill in, who else would?). I wrote a point in the talk page that someone should then, at least, remove the article link to my name. I've recused myself from making any further changes to that article.
2. Thankyou for redirecting the duplicate. I'm not sure how it happened. I think it was the first full article I created and I may have done something klutzy with it.
3. Again, my username is meant to disclose my identity for the purpose disclosing my identity when making references to my articles. I was quite explicit during the creation of the AIE and the AFD discussion. I will at least make sure that additions to future articles include at least a majority of other sources besides my own.
4. I'm sure Bill was kidding when he refered to himself as merely a meat puppet. We know each other, have similar intersts, and live near each other, so we will probably be commenting on similar articles. Even though we have long since disclosed our relationship (non-sexual) in wikipedia, I agree we should steer clear. On the other hand, if Bill always discloses that we know each other, I don't see the harm. We'll both be sure to do that when we edite the same topic.
5. My apologies on the heated-sounding responses but I thought the SPA label was unfair. By the way, I claim only to be informed on my topics of expertise. I don't always claim to be a "professional" and I meet lots of professionals in heated debates. On the other hand, I concede your point for the purpose of productivity and community in wikipedia.

Hubbardaie 19:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Patrick Murphy

• Patrick Murphy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Patrick Murphy (independent) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Massachusetts's 5th congressional district (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Massachusetts's 5th congressional district special election, 2007 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• In2itionmedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Danielcmurphy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - another SPA.

Edits about a political candidate being made by In2itionmedia (talk · contribs), a single-purpose-account which is the name of the media group that operates the candidate's website. Article hijacking of a disambiguation page. Videmus Omnia 18:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Add to that vandalism of an opponent's page. Videmus Omnia 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous...the other candidates have pages with their history and campaign promotional materials. How is this a "neutral resource" if all the candidates can't have pages with background information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by In2itionmedia (talk • contribs)

• A neutral editor has moved the information to the article Patrick Murphy (independent), which I stubbed to remove the unreferenced information and peacock terms. Videmus Omnia 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• thats fine the only reason i moved it was because the patrick murphy page was all about the guy running. the reason i didnt change anything on his page was because i commented in the discussion and thats my defense Gang14 04:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Peter DG Tompkins

• Peter DG Tompkins (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tompkins Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Norrington Table (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Peter Tompkins (talk · contribs)
• Probably an autobiography, I have tagged this article. Bearian 21:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like almost all of his edits have a conflict of interest. --Ronz 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I redirected the biography page, which was practically empty. The table pages may be worth deleting, but I'll leave it up to others. Tompkins seems to be inactive now. Mangojuice^talk 05:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Analytic Hierarchy Process and the Saaty's

• Analytic Hierarchy Process (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• RozannSaaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• TSaaty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 76.108.50.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP)is being vandalized or recreated with strong POV and COI. It appears the inventor of AHP and his wife, Thomas and Rozann Saaty (Usernames TSaaty, RozannSaaty), are repeatedly deleting citations of published papers that point out flaws in the AHP method. It appears that the accounts were created specifically with the single purpose in mind and with a conflict of interest because the only edits made by these accounts so far have been recent changes to this article. Both should be considered Coi and Spa. The last edit by RozannSaaty amounted to replacing the entire existing article with what was clearly blatant advertising. The last edit by TSaaty was to simply delete the entire article. They have been invited to articulate their rebutals to these papers without deleting the citations but they appear unwilling to do that with a neutral point of view.Hubbardaie 12:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Sounds like unwikipedian behavior to me. Bearian 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

unwikipedian? Good word. That's definitely going in my dictionary.Hubbardaie 20:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Easywayout (talk · contribs)

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Juniper Shuey

• Juniper Shuey (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Zoe Scofield (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Easywayout (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

The above two articles were created by the SPA Easywayout (talk · contribs), which also happens to be the name of a collaboration between the two artists. Strongly promotional in tone. Videmus Omnia 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll send these to WP:AFD. Shalom ^Hello 18:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Anne Lindfjeld

→ See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Lindfjeld

• Anne Lindfjeld (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Lindfjeld (talk · contribs)

The names are too close for coincidence. Seems like an autobiography. It's a poorly written article, with bad links. Also I sent this to WP:AFD. Bearian 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tlrp

• Teaching and Learning Research Programme (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Professor Miriam David (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Professor Mary James (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Tlrp (talk · contribs)
• Spammed article: Brain Gym (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This user seems to be creating articles about itself and its principals, in violation of conflicts rules, and inserting spam links into other articles as spam. It and they may be notable. It is a suspicious situation, and may involve a single purpose account. Bearian 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been on both sides of this type of situation. I've written an article about a method I personally invented but I made sure there were plenty of independent, notable and verifiable sources and then I voluntarilly removed myself from further substantive edits in the article (it passed a speedy delete vote unanimously). The problem with this article is that the only "reference" cited is what appears to be an unpublised internal document and links to their websites. It also seems highly unnecessary to simply list names of directors in an encyclopedic source. In general, its just a very light treatment of whatever this is supposed to be. It should probably just go up for an AFD discussion.Hubbardaie 20:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

SSRC is certainly a highly reputable organisation, and their major projects are probably notable--at least once they have been going for what is now 7 years. However, their PR people are like pother PR people, and the main article is as much spam as information. My personal touchstone for excessive spam is excessive emphasis on individual names or project names, and I have just removed some. The principal investigators on a project of this size are normally already highly notable, but the same can not always be said for the administrators. So I think the thing to do is to work on the articles individually according to their ordinary merits. (As is not unusual, the PR people have somewhat missed the boat--what would show notability is discussion of substantial published work and third party reviews of it, rather than just research plans--just as with anything else.) I'm watching them all. DGG 04:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Cogswell College

• Cogswell College (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Some dude (User:Joel_Lindley) constantly deletes anything from this article if it is not negative enough. I see that *he* reported a conflict of interest with someone else, and people investigating it found out that "Joel" had been involved in some sort of incident with the college, apparently involving the better business bureau. As the person responding to HIS conflict-of-interest report noted, he has an epinions page containing details of his experiences with the school, and he is constantly trying to make the wikipedia page for the school match the opinions in that page by deleting any material that could be considered positive. the latest, for example, was that he deleted a link to a story in IGN (a neutral, third-party publisher with a decent reputation and which is fairly well-known in the gaming industry) because it was "an ad for the school.")

He definitely seems to have some personal issues regarding the school - as pointed out in the response to his conflict-of-interest (in the archives), he was accusing some anonymous guy of a conflict, and the anonymous guy traced back to a law firm in chicago, while the college is in california. As the previous "investigation" showed, he had filed a better business bureau complaint against the school, and, according to a epinions review by someone with the same name, apparently some sort of civil rights complaint against the school as well. In the discussion for the cogswell page, he seems to admit having had some sort of "past" with the school. Although he seems willing to leave the page as it is alone for the moment, I'm not quite clear from his recent discussion entries what his actual position is.

He also constantly is threatening people with various sanctions for posting anonymously, which, at the least, seems like it should be discouraged, but i don't know where to go to complain about that.

Joel's previous conflict-of-interest report and responses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_13#Cogswell_College

Camaier 17:09, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Competition law

User:TedFrank has been recently editing the Competition law article, in such a way that is politically motivated by his place of work - the American Enterprise Institute. This is a conservative think tank which lobbies for the viewpoints of certain economists, which the Competition law article deals with, e.g. Robert Bork. It began with a section (now) titled "Chicago School" where he complained of the first sentence using the word cranks. I changed that and accordingly removed the neutrality tag here because that had (I thought) been the complaint. User:TedFrank then added more and more objections, and the whole thing deteriorated. I made edits a number of times to keep up. I probably am to blame, for being too sarcastic on a few occasions which is poor form on my part. It seems now however the user has another agenda, the page being called "pro interventionist", "eurocentric" and in his view now "not even a B class on closer inspection." The latest complaint is about a nobel prize winning development economist being in a footnote, because undue weight is being given to him and not for two conservative economists, Richard Epstein and Frank Easterbrook. The theory part has an entire section for what's known as the Chicago school, but now the entire article is tagged to be rewritten, presumably with the conservative outlook of User:TedFrank's thinktank. I would like to ask for some intervention and am happy to take any advice offered on this one from administrators who don't have a particular political interest. I'll stop editting the article in the mean time.Wikidea 08:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Wow, this is serious. We should get the Law Project involved. Bearian 16:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

This is the opposite of serious. Before I saw this complaint I asked two Wiki administrators, User:Newyorkbrad and User:Cool Hand Luke, who are also attorneys, to inspect my edits for COI problems, and both found that my suggestions and tags were appropriate.[49] [50] [51] For example:

THF is entirely right. I cannot understand why we should cite two of Posner's books inline without even hinting about what his views are or they are or why they became influential. This section still reads as if a capitalist cabal of cranks was sinisterly stationed into positions of power by Ronald Reagan. It mentions some of the key players and documents their relationships, but nobody could read this article and have any idea why the Chicago School thinks as they do. Cool Hand Luke 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The bad faith of the COI accusation can be seen by the fact that one of Wikidea's examples of my alleged COI--which occurred on the talk page--was self-reverted twenty seconds later. The real problem here is WP:OWN: the article is shoddy and unbalanced and Eurocentric and violates NPOV, but the editor does not want to edit collaboratively, and has inappropriately attacked every editor who has objected to his version of the article, in this case making uncivil personal attacks against me and accusing me of "vandalism" because I added an NPOV tag and objected to his edit-warring. This complaint is utterly inappropriate: I have made thousands of edits here without a legitimate problem, yet am being accused of an "agenda." Every suggestion I've made for editing the article is legitimate. Where is the COI problem because I'm discussing these issues on the talk page and simply asking for NPOV to be adhered to? I'd like to see Wikidea investigated and sanctioned for the violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, and WP:NPOV, and I strenously object to the violation of WP:BLP that appears in his personal attack here that my edits are "politically motivated." THF 17:31, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to an inquiry concerning this thread on my userpage. In view of the opening comment above, hopefully it will not be necessary for anyone to raise civility or personal-attack concerns again with regard to this article. With regard to the substance, I don't see any overt COI issues at this time, but I remind everyone to adhere to the fundamental policy of NPOV. This article, as I've mentioned on its talkpage, should address all significant perspectives on competition/antitrust law in a wide range of national settings. We have plenty of editors with relevant legal and/or economics background and this should be a fine article if everyone edits with our policies in mind. Newyorkbrad 18:08, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Undoubtedly THF's employer would disapprove of the article's slant, but this is not a COI issue. The article is in fact seriously biased, and THF has made many legitimate suggestions to improve it. It's true the THF has opinions, but this does not prevent him from contributing well-sourced and NPOV text—he does not appear to be censoring the article. The principle author also has a bias, as shown by the heading he originally gave the Chicago School—which is the dominant line of thought in US competition law—he titled it "neo-liberal radicalism". This term is both POV and apparently an invented neologism. Wikipedia is better off because an editor with a complimentary point of view (THF) helped fix this problem. I think further cooperation would greatly improve the article. Cool Hand Luke 18:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Counsellors, I did not mean the COI was serious, I meant it was a serious issue for WP:LAW. I alerted Newyorkbrad. We need a well-balanced article with references to law from many countries. Sorry for the confusion. I am happy to make suggestions and edits, although antitrust is not my area of expertise. Bearian 18:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally wikidea, accusing the AEI of complicity in these edits is a very serious claim. As THF points out on Newyorkbrad's talk page, it would be illegal for the AEI to do this. It's one thing to accuse users of bad faith, but it's quite another to attack third parties. I think you should carefully edit your remarks. Cool Hand Luke 18:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, it is illegal for my employer (or for me) to lobby. It is not illegal for my employer to edit Wikipedia, though they do not do so. My employer's most likely reaction would be "Why are you wasting time on the Internet instead of writing another law review article?", but I do resent the personal attacks, which force me to waste time defending myself, and reduce the spare time I have to make productive contributions to Wikipedia to the detriment of the project. There should be some consequence for what has been repeated disruptive behavior by Wikidea, and I'm not the first editor who he has tried to bully away from collaborative editing. THF 18:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Not satisfied with the unanimous rejection of his complaint here, Wikidea is now engaging in personal attacks on the competition law page. I object, and would like Wikipedia rules to be enforced. THF 21:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

• Addition Just to restate, no one has said that Ted, or his Luke acting with him, is being paid to lobby for certain changes, but his edits are overwhelmingly bias, according to the place he works. This is not some conspiracy theory, it's the far more mundane allegation that the User is unfit to be commenting on this page because of the pursuit of his slanted viewpoint. The so called "personal attacks" that he is referring to above, by the way, were exactly the same comment as I've posted here to begin with. I was then threatened with blocking, because Luke happens to be an administrator, when I tried to revert its deletion from the talk page. It seems a typical thing to do, according to the conservative philosophy they hold - start posting POV tags on pages, rubbish people who reply and object to deletion of good material, accuse them of breaching WP:OWN, don't compromise and keep writing until the other gives up. An example of the same pattern of action can be found on the Talk:The Great Global Warming Swindle page. Wikidea 17:40, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, it's simply not the case that only left-wing editors are permitted on Wikipedia and it's not the case that the mere fact that I hold views consistent with the United States Supreme Court on competition law prohibits me from participating on any law-related articles. Wikidea's admitted refusal to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:AGF, and his continuing this disruptive vendetta, despite not being able to identify a single non-compliant edit I have made, should face some administrative sanction. THF 18:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Match (magazine)

• Match (magazine) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  
• Matchmagazine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  
• TomBoy78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - Self evident with "Matchmagazine". adding a new SPA account Hu12 13:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments There's been a lot of discussion on the talk page, user's talk page, and in the wikitext of the article itself. The creator with the "self-evident" nomiker has been editing it again, possibly in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV policies. Should we place a COI2 tag on it? By the way, I wikified the introductory paragraph. Bearian 15:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've added the COI2 tag to the article and noted COI on Matchmagazine (talk · contribs)'s talk page. not sure what the next best step should be?--Hu12 20:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The editors named above, Matchmagazine (talk · contribs) and TomBoy78 (talk · contribs), have not done anything more to the article since this report was opened, on 8 July. Can we close this as a COI? I would also remove the {{COI2}} template from the article. Some neutral editors have pitched in since July and made improvements. EdJohnston 05:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Light Children

• Light Children (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Kyletw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• The creator of the article has a similar name to the author of the graphic novel that is the subject of this article. I'll give a notice to the newbie user as well. Bearian 17:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Marisa Canales

• Marisa Canales (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Marisa Canales (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• Autobiography or fan-created article. I tagged it for COI2. What do we do with this one? Bearian 17:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm most concerned with the lack of references. Try a Google search and see if you can find her listed in the Mexican orchestra. The events she is said to have participated are notable well beyond the deletion threshold, so we may be stuck with this article, so let's try to pile up the references - but not now bec. I need to go to sleep. Shalom ^Hello 05:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

International Securities Exchange

• Kgrochocki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 64.95.40.254 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - some one want to look at the article International Securities Exchange. Most of the article has been written with a promotional tone by Kgrochocki (talk · contribs), and many of the sections read like an advert. Possible WP:COI as this editor has no other edits asside from this one articleHu12 20:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • outrageously spammy article but a very important company. Had it been a little less important, I would have speedied as G11. As is, I reduced the article to reason, using my customary strategy of reducing bold face and full capitals, eliminating most repeated names of company and products, deleting a long list of available contracts, & deleting all logos except the main logo. But it needs expert attention. I am still concerned about the internal linkspam from the options trading terms listed as see alsos, and the possibly duplicative timeline. DGG (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Absolutely agree on the importance of the article. thank you for the edits. Sections Timeline, ISE Options Exchange, ISE Stock Exchange and Market data seem to have a tone that fails to be encyclopedic. A few more edits should bring it to par. I know July 2, 2007 ISE re-launched its website[52] which would help explain the COI--Hu12 07:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Lauren Jones, etc.

• Lauren Jones (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Anchorwoman: The TV Show (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Mark Jacobs (director) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Laurenjones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 138.89.86.157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 68.88.123.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

-- Suspicious doings by spa editors at these articles, which all smack of boosterism. THF 17:25, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark R. Graczynski

Graczynski (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) -article appears to have been started by its subject. --A. B. ^(talk) 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art

Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Peter Doroshenko (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

The Centre's own press office have admitted to cleaning up the article. The current version has a long unreferenced section hyping the program and is not consistent with other UK gallery articles.212.85.13.113 14:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Both articles are problematic and have been edited by the same group of local editors such as Surface01 (talk · contribs) and Kjhughes (talk · contribs). I'm not sure what to do beyond slapping on COI tags and praying for rain. It's way past my bedtime anyhow. Shalom ^Hello 05:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ron Paul

In the future, I predict Wikipedia will be a political campaign battleground. For Ron Paul, the future is now. That article is being edited by strong supporters (some of whom admit to it on their userpage) and several talk page commentators have complained that it reads like an ad. Sourced critical commentary has been removed as "hearsay" and a list of his political positions has been repeatedly removed from the intro. Given that Paul's positions are quite divergent, very unlike typical Republicans, I feel the summary of political positions is important. It would be nice to have some neutral editors have a look. BenB4 20:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I normally deal with the "cheapo" COI reports, such as where the author's username is identical to the article, so it's pretty obvious that the article should be deleted. The Ron Paul page has almost 100 references, and it's way out of my league. I think the best place to resolve your concerns is Wikipedia:Peer review or perhaps Wikipedia:Third opinion. Shalom ^Hello 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Call me naive, but it looks like a fairly fair article. Let's face it, he's controversial. I agree that WP will probably become a battleground. Bearian 22:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It's sourced, and you too can add sourced info to balance it out. The problem just might be that ROn Paul is so unambiguously awesome that any article about him will seem like an add. Basejumper 21:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

David W Solomons

Dwsolo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is David W Solomons. The vast majority of his edits are adding links to his own site. He has now uploaded content and is linking that instead. Nice to have free content media (if he genuinely owns all rights) but it's still vanity. Can anyone find any edits by him that are not promoting himself? Guy (Help!) 08:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He is continually adding music created by himself and if someone were to verify where the music came from by looking at his user page they'll find his website. He is definitely not interested in adding the music created by others to build up Wikipedia as an encyclopaedia. He also seems to be using Wikipedia to store his files WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. The only reason he makes his music GFDL is to promote his own work. Jono1970 07:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I thought that was the purpose of MySpace. Bearian 22:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

On the Solomons Usertalk page, User:Moreschi is adamantly defending the uploads. I don't understand how they're being used but he seems to feel they are important to Wikipedia. -Jmh123 00:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have an issue with the account being created solely to upload music files created by himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dwsolo He was adding links to his website before but has stopped. He appears to have no intention of adding any text despite having knowledge on the subject being a composer. He has also been told that he should only upload music files with no reference to his name. I believe the sole purpose of his account is self promotion. Jono1970 12:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Frank R. Wallace

• Bi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User:Bi may be involved in WP:COI edits. This user and his website are cited as competitors with the organizations of Frank R. Wallace (1932-2006). This status is stated on a Nouveau-Tech Society homepage. (Pax Neo-TeX and it's author are listed in the last paragraph.)

To note, User:Bi has been heavily involved with editing the article on Frank R. Wallace. These edits may be an obstruction (such as Afd nominations). Edits also seem to go against guidelines which suggest to avoid or exercise great caution with COI edits on articles and their Afd discussions (rather than extensive participation). Many articles are available that User:Bi could be extensively involved in that do not violate Wikipedia’s policies. The article on Frank R. Wallace (and his company) is not one of them, as per User:Bi's COI.

(Represents separate issue from self-promotion COI --above-- which mentioned link spam. That incident is on it's way to resolution... a self-promotion link to User:Bi's site being mostly considered as inappropriate.)

Though a COI is possibly evident, can compile references or examples of COI edits if this would be helpful. Thanks. J. T. Lance 11:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on Frank R. Wallace, and the conduct of Bi and other involved users, is now the subject of a Mediation case. The Mediation Committee now has jurisdiction. Also, I would not consider this a normal COI case. Rather, Bi evidently has an anti-Wallace POV, and J. T. Lance has explained why he might have that POV - but that still doesn't tell us what to do in a complicated dispute resolution situation, so I've decided to punt and let MedCom handle it. Thanks for the report. Shalom ^Hello 20:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the MedCom case is closed, but I still can't be bothered to do anything about this article. Shalom ^Hello 20:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. A concern though was with User:Bi’s COI (noted above) more so than dispute resolution with MedCom (previously closed incident). Would it be beneficial for an editor to post a tag on user's page found to have a COI, or to ask user's with a COI to gain consensus on talk page prior to additions to articles? I hope this is okay. Thanks again. J. T. Lance 08:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

List of Tamil language television channels

List of Tamil language television channels (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Galaxy7953 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

202.76.226.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

This user is a single purpose account devoted to adding items from the Galaxy TV network to the list above. The aggregate diff of his edits to this article shows an addition exclusively of shows with the word "Galaxy" in them, similar to his own username. I recommend that these all be reverted, and I wouldn't be horrified if the article got deleted altogether, but I want a second pair of eyes to review this and execute the revert if it's appropriate. Shalom ^Hello 03:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. I also dished out a few speedy tags. MER-C 06:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• This might also be a possible candidate for non-speedy deletion based on listcruft and WP:NOT. Bearian 22:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Some links readded 26 July, but I don't see the problem. Is someone contending that these aren't Tamil language television channels? THF 13:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Biscayne Landing

• Biscayne Landing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Marketingsupport (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• NoMoBS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 216.199.93.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

User (and "anonymous" but same user based on IP address) from the PR firm representing Biscayne Landing are regularly deleting/spinning sourced information. In addition, they are threatening to sue wikipedia if any negative information is included in Biscayne Landing article. User_talk:Marketingsupport While some minor NPOV edits are valid, the large amount of POV edits make it difficult to replace improperly deleted info without reverting entire article. Additional problem with Munisport article by same user(s) --RandomStuff 17:40, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed this because a report came to WP:SSP regarding the three editors listed here. The page history is too muddled to attack the COI by a normal method - i.e., take out whatever the COI-editor put in. Instead, the article just needs to be kept neutral. At first glance, it seems neutral at the moment, but if these folks persist in POV pushing, the next step is probably dispute resolution. Shalom ^Hello 05:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime Detour

• Anime Detour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Anime detour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

This single purpose editor has repeated removed a cleanup tag and twice replacing it with a note directing readers to an external website.[53][54][55][56] (comments justifying actions[57]) The editor's more recent edit was to place a self referencing message asking the article to be written, which was the purpose of the original cleanup tag[58] along with this demand for the article to be "fix" instead of having the cleanup tag reapplied.[59]

Because of his/her edits and username and indications of WP:OWNernship over the cleanup tags on the article, I highly suspect that the editor is connected to the convention which the article is based on. --Farix (Talk) 03:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

With these three edits,[60][61][62] he has effectively declared WP:OWNership of the article. --Farix (Talk) 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

His userpage proves the COI beyond doubt. It's almost laughable. I'll add a warning, and I'll check for 3rr. Shalom ^Hello 13:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The user had never been warned before. If he continues, a short-term block may be necessary. Until then, just keep an eye on the article. Shalom ^Hello 13:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would this have been sufficient enough to be classed as a warning?[63]At the time, it wasn't clear that there was a COI, but the guideline was referenced and one of the links above also demonstrates that he/she responded to the message. --Farix (Talk) 18:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Although the blatant assertions of ownership have gone, I still read a tone of WP:OWN into the "under construction" tag in conjunction with a statement about the article being "under construction until further notice" [64]. Gordonofcartoon 22:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I put the under construction tag there, because it served the purpose better than the bold text that was previously there. MER-C 02:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how dare people who actually run the convention update a wikipedia article about it! The link in question goes to Anime Detour's website, which is the best source for information there is about the convention. It's not like this is a political link or something like that-- the site provides just information about the convention, nothing more and nothing less. The user in question runs the AD website, in fact, and is part of the board for Anime Twin Cities, Inc. (the parent company which runs Anime Detour), so he is rather knowledgeable about the subject. Jtrainor 20:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Robert Bernard Hass

• Robert Bernard Hass (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Rhass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Subject appears notable from Ghits, but apparently all contributions are by subject of the article. Left uw-coi tag on user's talk page, but he doesn't seem to be recently active. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:55, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article is pretty objectively written - it's not spammy or anything. I say just leave it for now. The Evil Spartan 17:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

State University of New York at New Paltz

• State University of New York at New Paltz (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• 137.140.48.96 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• RadicalHarmony (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

I'm afraid that an edit war over COI/POV is about to break out. On the talk page, User:RadicalHarmony has accused the unregistered User:137.140.48.96 of being an employee of the SUNY New Paltz and of making POV edits and thus having a COI here: Talk:State_University_of_New_York_at_New_Paltz#Crazy_POV_edits. User:RadicalHarmony has also admitted to his own POV and COI. (My interest is that I'm an alumnus, class of Dec. 1986, and a member of its planned giving club, the Tower Society.) What should be done? Bearian 18:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any immediate danger of an edit-war: the article hasn't been edited in over a week. A good starting point might be to zap all of the material that's gone unsourced since March - if nobody's interested in referencing it, it should go. Of the edits by the IP listed above, I notice only that this section is largely a copyvio of this page. — mholland (talk) 20:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. User:RadicalHarmony has also contacted me about this on my talk page. Bearian 20:57, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Stillwater Mining Company

• Stillwater Mining Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• J-M Reef (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Silverbach (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
  • 68.167.16.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
  • 65.126.63.122 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

The accounts listed above, anonymous and otherwise, are single-purpose accounts focused on promoting Stillwater Mining Company (and related companies) by creating or editing related articles with evidence of a conflict of interest. all links added by these sock-accounts have been cleaned.

→ See also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Stillwater_Mining_and_related //Hu12 02:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Paul Truong

• Paul Truong (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• SusanPolgar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Polgar is the wife of Truong. She makes many edits to this page that may or may not constitute a conflict of interest. I'd like others to weigh in and take a look. Among her edits is the occasional removal of statements that support the fact that she is, in fact, married to him. She also keeps adding statements about a chess program that she and he run at a university in Texas. So any other eyes and comments on this would be appreciated. Metros 03:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be old at this point. I sent SusanPolgar email, offering to help with any problems that come up. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Daphne Rosen

• Daphne Rosen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Daphnerosen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Extensive autobiographical editing by article subject. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Enfield 8000

• Enfield 8000 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - This article has been edited constantly, after warnings, by the user below, who states he was involved heavily in the company producing the car.
• Constantine Adraktas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - This user stated, in the article, and in their CV (user page), the following: "I am the then Chairman, Managing and Technical Director of Enfield Automotive, as it can be evidenced from the Electricity Council – Enfield Automotive contract.

So far, I have recommended suggesting the changes on the talkpage, but I do not believe they will heed the warning - after the previous COI warning, they continued to edit the article, so they dont seem to be very responsive. I am not sure how to proceed. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

City Harvest Church

• City Harvest Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• New Creation Church (Singapore) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Faith Community Baptist Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

These are a series of "megachurches" in Singapore that have recently been getting a lot of attention from obvious COI accounts. I've been trying to nip things in the bud, deleting sermon schedules and whatnot, but I've noticed that my cleanup tags are getting deleted and other edit wars are starting, so it would help if we had a couple other non-COI editors who were helping to keep an eye on things. Thanks, Elonka 19:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Newcreationcorpcomms is an obvious source of concern, particularly the outgoing message on the user page. Recommend COI caution at the user talk page. Durova^Charge! 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The article Kong Hee also seems to have a conflict of interest. Accounts that have edited the City Harvest Church have also edited it. Kong Hee is the senior pastor of City Harvest Church. Champlainant 07:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

MobMov

• MobMov - Any protests about my moving the content in Talk:MobMov into the main article space verbatim despite the fact that I am personally involved in the organization? Thanks! - Richfife 22:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The draft you created includes some very respectable third-party sources, and more are provided at [65]. At present, it seems that the cultural phenomenon of do-it-yourself drive-in movies is what is significant. The phenomenon is currently addressed in Drive-in_theater#Decline, although that article does not have proper references. I suggest that MobMov is correctly placed in the Drive-in_theater article and that some of the references you found might be added to that article. I'm not yet convinced that MobMov itself is notable enough for a free-standing article. As a first step, you might try enhancing the section in Drive-in_theater that talks about this; a section header other than 'Decline' may be appropriate. EdJohnston 14:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Amy Mihaljevic

see also: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Amy Mihaljevic

see also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic

• Amy Mihaljevic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• JamesRenner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
• 207.58.222.242 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)
• TheColdestCase (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) - old SPA (apparently no longer in use)

The user above is the author (James Renner) of a book about this crime victim[66], and is editing the article to include his own theories, citing his own book as a source. The article was fully protected per WP:BLP, listing here as a record for our WP:COI experts. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

IP above (suspected to be same SPA) removing maintenance tags and IfD notices. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Add to that removal of the COI tag from the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

National Academic Championship

National Academic Championship is being edited by user Mensa1960, whose only edits are to this article, and who claims on the talk page to be "a member of the National Academic Association" (the semi-fictitious group which runs the National Academic Championship. It is likely that this user is Chip Beall, as he is the only known member of the "National Academic Association" and a previous user under the name "CharlesBeall" disappeared from Wikipedia after similar conduct. Whether he is Beall or not, he does admit on the talk page to editing an article about a product that he sells.

• Ha, I competed in that! Chip's a controversial guy, somehow. -- But|seriously|folks  03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mdomino

Mdomino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is uploading Ashley Bickerton creations and claiming to be the creator of the images, then adding them to the Bickerton article. He or she has also been editing the Bickerton article. Either Mdomino is Bickerton, in which case he's violation WP:COI with his edits, or he is not, and therefore the images he is uploading are not his creations. I have left a message on his Talk page. Corvus cornix 20:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mdomino has indicated on my talk page that they represent the gallery which shows Mr. Bickerton's work. I have pointed them to the WP:CP page and how to prove the right to release images. Corvus cornix 20:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Mark Hudson

• Mark Hudson (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Both COI and BLP issues. The subject's daughter, an up and coming musician, is apparently both adding information about her work to her father's bio, and also trying to delete information -- Her father, a music producer, was fired in 1995 because of allegations of sexual harassment. The story has multiple sources, including the Los Angeles Times,[67] but there is disagreement as to how much of the Wikipedia article space, if any, should be devoted to this incident from over 10 years ago. --Elonka 21:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

American Chess Association

• American Chess Association (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - Amchess (talk · contribs) is repeatedly replacing this article with one that asserts that the historical ACA organisation is the same as a current corp from Nevada. As best I can tell, no evidence to date has been provided to link the two. John Vandenberg 02:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit protected the article for one week. Refactored speculation about user's real name. Durova^Charge! 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Grace Evangelical Society

• MidwestRails11000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

SPA entirely devoted to POV hyping the notability of this organisation and writing it into prime position in related theological articles. See [68]: "I'm a member of GES, and have been one for years. I have also been far more successful in editing in a "Neutral POV" than has been found in Wiki on this issue for years ... You've seen the changes I made to the Lordship page, now take a good look at the juvenile nonsense it replaced ... etc". Gordonofcartoon 23:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

• [Since I'm not sure if this is an appropriate place to put my defense. I'll for now leave it here.]

While I don't understand some of the jargon in the above accusation, and I freely admit a conflict of interest [since I am a homeschooling mom member of the theological society under discussion] I also argue I am far better at putting at arms length my conflict than the very juvenile bias that has been on display in the Lordship Salvation debate for years on Wiki. Apply your standards evenly. The GES represents the minority position in the debate and I am intent on learning and putting into practice your standards, but I'm new and am still learning. I've no interest in arguing the debate or hyping my side on wiki. But the majority position shouldn't be the only one allowed as an entry. Was the John F. MacArthur (an advocate of the majority position in the Lordship debate) entry really not written by his staff? Gordonofcartoon has made declarations on the discussion page like that the GES entry, "wrongly gives the impression that the GES is the prime mover relating to this school of thought. It ain't." This is easily shown to be a falsehood but I can only show it, so far, with primary sources: that is, the two biggest names in the majority position of the debate have recognized the GES as the main voice of the minority position. But, so far, I havn't found secondary sources that explicitly affirm the GES as notable. May I have more time? Johanna Sawyer 01:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's a commonly moot point here whether mere membership of a group counts as a significant conflict of interest. But given that you don't yet seem sufficiently familar with how the neutral point of view, verifiability and original research policies work, I think there's a problem.

You can't make editorial inferences along the lines of "X are important because Y published them or Z engaged in debate with them". That much I could spot and remove, but it makes me worry whether there may be specialist problems I can't spot in the selection of material - especially if your general synthesis of that material is informed primarily by the GES itself. Gordonofcartoon 14:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sapientis

• Sapientis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - The creator User:Dzehr has made no other edits except this page creation, and the organization's founder has the last name of Ehr. Although it's a non profit, the article appears written from a spammy and WP:POV perspective, to push the agenda of an organization that has questionable notability. Eliz81^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FIx it then. You can re-edit the article to be less spammy, and remind the subject we are discussing of his COI issue. He can edit, he just has to avoid being unfair. Basejumper 21:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A quick check suggests Sapientis is likely to be notable, with some mentions in the mainstream press. I've given User:Dzehr a friendly reminder about COI. Basejumper's advice is sound. Raymond Arritt 02:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Tj galda

Crosspost from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#User:Joe_animator (Reported by user:Ronz).

• Tj galda (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Joe animator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)

Article created by Joe animator, who seems to be the subject, Subject seems notable, but article needs cleanup for style. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Arc of MA

• The Arc of MA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) and
• 24.91.123.116 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) are editing disability related articles in a strongly non-neutral-point-of-view way, and are adding links to thearc.org: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-XWiki - Eagle's spam report search • Interwiki link search, big: 20 - 57 • Linkwatcher: search • Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com . Especially blatant promotional was the edit to the disambiguation page Arc (diff; a full text section about the organisation as the first section on the page, before 'Computing', so not in alphabetical order like the rest of the sections) I have reverted the edits and will ask the two editors to comment here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

My name is John Thomas, I am the Deputy Director for The Arc of Massachusetts, the Massachusetts affiliate of The Arc U.S., a non-profit advocacy organization that works on behalf of people with developmental disabilities. I do not understand your term "blatant promotional" on whatever content I may have posted in an effort to clarify the mission and size of our organization. I have never posted before, so may have inadvertently done so in an improper manner - however, I welcome your proof of any of the content accuracy.

After reviewing Wikipedia over the last few months, I have concluded The Arc does not have any presence of note on Wikipedia – an exception being an external link at the bottom of the page dedicated to Mental retardation where there is a reference to “Association for Retarded Citizens” an outdated acronym formerly associated with our organization.

Our homepage is www.arcmass.org and our national URL is www.thearc.org

Our state organization is 50 years old - you may view a chronological history I have documented at the following link: http://www.arcmass.org/Home/WhoWeAre/History/tabid/117/Default.aspx

As mentioned, we are a non-profit, and despite the extensive size of our combined national affiliates, my office is small, we have no dedicated IT professional, nor any media or public relations staff (that would be me, informally). To put things into perspective, despite having a master's degree in public administration, my annual salary is $53,000, so I am not posting content to increase personal or organizational revenue.

My only goal is to provide more accurate and up-to-date information on Wikipedia on behalf of the constituency my organization represents. I welcome any assistance you may offer to help in this effort that would seem to benefit both Wikipedia and people The Arc represents (people with disabilities).

I have blocked this user name indefinitely as it contains the name of the organization the user has been promoting. -- But|seriously|folks  03:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Mr. Thomas, I appreciate your desire for Wikipedia to have accurate information, but the core issue here is our conflict-of-interest guidelines, which strongly discourage you from editing articles about yourself or your organization. Wikipedia is supposed to be an independent reference source based on reliable, published secondary sources. We are not a place for organizations to promote themselves. I realize that you were unaware of these policies, but we guard this nature of the encyclopedia pretty carefully, so that may have been part of why this received such a strong response. AKRadecki^Speaketh 03:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

NetSuite

• NetSuite (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

While I don't have definitive proof of conflict of interest on the part of any given editor, the article seems to devolve into press release/marketese pretty frequently (removed here), would appreciate another pair of eyes or two. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

SEVERN BARRAGE - TIDAL POWER vandalism

FIG seems to be playing both ends off against the middle in his attempts to have his pet project about the proposed multi billion pound Severn Barrage in the south west UK.

He has repeated vandalised my edits, harrassed me and solicited others to assist his bias attacks with the point of dismissing anything that may conflict with tidal power barrage technologies.

He has vandalised and removed large parts of my edits on Tidal Power's main page and when asked to arbitrate, has run for cover. Rather FIG has resorted to under hand tactics aimed at silencing debate and discontinuing edits about alternative tidal power technology. He cites far fetched examples of COI while inciting authorities to block me. He has repeatedly used Wiki for his own benefit and has censured the sharing of facts about the industry just beacuse he does not understand the science. As a person with an industry background I have tried to reason with him> I try to bring ALL the news into a forum for the benefit of all. FIG on the other hand has been unable to make any positive contribution or ethically add to the debate.

It is my opinion that the FIG is a blight on Wiki and should be discilpined. I urge those with the authority to act to investigate his action on both the Severn Barrage page and the Tidal Power page to see for themselves just hwere his sympathies lay. Tidalenergy 12:02, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you alleging a conflict of interest? If so, where's the evidence for conflict of interest? (If not, this complaint shouldn't be here: please reread the instructions at the top of this page.) -- Hoary 12:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had you trouble with you and FIG before. I would appeal to an independent third party for arbitration. But in any event I do allege COI as is clear from FIG's edits. About how barrages are taking over the world (when olny three exist) in an attempt to slinece the dispertion of information about tidal stream.

I have made it abundantly clear I have a background in tidal stream. So where is the conflict of interest. Logic suggests as well as Wiki guidlines that someone has to have access to the facts and the right to place them online or else how does one get access to the info? If FIG wants to can someone why not the blatant commercial advertising about this that or the other deployment by companies along with full colour pictures being placed on the main Tidal Power page. FIG would have us all abide under the hypocracy of his version of double standards.

I suggest arbitrators examine both mine and Tidalenergy's edits and come to their own conclusions. People should read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Tidal_power for the background to this dispute Fig 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

FIG has blatantly vandalised my edits ( and got away with it) about the dozens of tidal stream turbines being installed around the world because he has a penchant for tidal barrages that have huge negative impacts on the eco system, disruption to transport not to mention cost billions. He has stated on his edits that the Severn Barrage will "soon be built" despite the fact that no Government or investor will pay billions for the few mega watts it returns when there are better cost alternatives. He has solicited people with comments like those above in order to villify me and have me blocked form telling the other side of the story. That of Tidal Stream technology and the lastest advances. FIG has repeatedly avoided my attempts to debate the facts and has rather drawn a long bow about some sort of COI to muddy the waters and hide the fact that he is so heavily predjuiced he is blind to the central issue--- that of the free and un feathered spread of information for all. Freedom of free speech is in jeopardy here if these actions go unchecked.

This should never have come to this. FIG should have followed the guidlines for disputes that I have submitted to. FIG has run for cover and tried in vain to twist facts and figures in an attempt to disrupt my edits and have me blocked. He has harrassed me from forum to forum in his endeavours to see me stopped. H ave repeatedly asked him to cease and desist but he continues with impunity. I would appeal to those in authority to please stop this person from thier mis-use of the system. Tidalenergy 22:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

One of the most effective methods of resolving a dispute is to step away from it, even temporarily. Tidalenergy and Fig appear to be arguing unproductively, with more heat than light. Situations can sometimes become so heated that the original point of contention becomes a side-issue. I recommend that both parties take a break from this topic or even from Wikipedia. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

::::: Very wise words. I give my word that I will step away from this if FIG will agree to do the same. I wish to part in peace not in pieces. How about it FIG --- maybe we could talk it over and be friends??? Tidalenergy 08:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

They who walk away first are the winners. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well said Jehochman. Tidalenergy 04:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
• Raphael1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)